Beltran v. Superior Court of California et al, No. 1:2019cv01436 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 7 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/11/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Beltran v. Superior Court of California et al Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SEBASTIAN P. BELTRAN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 16 17 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. 14 15 No. 1:19-cv-1436-DAD-EPG (Doc. No. 7) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff Sebastian P. Beltran is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed under to 20 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 21 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On May 7, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations 23 recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to state a 24 claim and failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc No. 7.) Plaintiff 25 was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within 26 fourteen days. (Id.) On July 7, 2020, plaintiff untimely filed a document which appears to be a 27 proposed Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 10.) The court construes this document as 28 plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), this court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 3 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 4 by proper analysis. Plaintiff’s amended complaint, construed as objections to the findings and 5 recommendations, does not address the numerous pleading failures identified by the magistrate 6 judge, which include violations of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18, and 20; the fact that 7 plaintiff’s efforts to challenge an underlying state court criminal conviction are not cognizable in 8 a civil rights action such as this filed in federal court; and the related fact that claims for damages 9 that would imply the invalidity of a conviction or sentence are barred by the decision in Heck v. 10 Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994). 11 Accordingly, 12 1. The findings and recommendations entered on May 7, 2020 (Doc. No. 7) are adopted 13 14 in full; 2. This case is dismissed with prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable 15 16 claim and failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose of closing the case and then to close this case. 17 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 11, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
