(PC) Oscar A. Aguilar v. Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, No. 1:2019cv01802 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to Assign a District Judge; ORDER ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/11/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Rivera, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 OSCAR A. AGUILAR, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 No. 1:19-cv-01802-NONE-EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, (Doc. No. 13) Defendant. 15 16 17 Plaintiff Oscar A. Aguilar is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 5, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 21 recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice and without leave 22 to amend due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 23 No. 13.) Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and 24 recommendations within thirty (30) days. (Id.) Plaintiff timely filed objections. (Doc. No. 14.) 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), this court has conducted 26 a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 27 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 28 by proper analysis. Plaintiff’s objections fail to undermine the reasoning of the findings and 1 1 recommendations, which correctly conclude: (1) that plaintiff cannot challenge the legality of 2 the sentence imposed in his state court criminal case through a federal civil rights action such 3 as this; (2) plaintiff fails to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim based upon his 4 contention that he received a grossly disproportionate sentence; (3) plaintiff fails to sufficiently 5 plead a claim based upon state court rulings denying his requests for DNA; and (4) plaintiff 6 likewise fails to state a cognizable civil rights claim based upon allegedly false information 7 contained in his prison records. 8 Accordingly, 9 1. The findings and recommendations entered October 5, 2020 (Doc. No. 13) are 10 adopted in full; 11 2. This case is dismissed with prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim; and 12 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose 13 14 of closing the case and then to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: December 11, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 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.