(PC) Smith v. Diaz, et al., No. 1:2020cv00349 - Document 38 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 36 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/28/2023. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, Case No. 1:20-cv-0349 JLT HBK (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION v. (Doc. 36) RALPH DIAZ, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Lawrence Christopher Smith is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The magistrate judge reviewed the allegations of 19 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Doc. 36.) The magistrate 20 judge observed Plaintiff identified 21 different defendants in the FAC, “including the California 21 Attorney General Xavier Becerra, the Board of Supervisors for Kings County, the District 22 Attorney for Kings County, Ralph Diaz, former Secretary of the California Department of 23 Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), the Warden, Associate Warden and Chief Medical 24 Officer of California State Prison (CSP), Corcoran, and numerous correctional officials.” (Id. at 25 4.) The magistrate judge noted Plaintiff “raise[d] numerous unrelated claims against unrelated 26 Defendants stemming from events that occurred in 2016, 2017, 2019, and 2020.” (Id.) The 27 magistrate judge found the allegations failed to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil 28 Procedure because “[t]he FAC is rambling and is a collection of run-on sentences interspersed 1 with random facts.” (Id. at 6-7.) In addition, the magistrate judge determined Plaintiff failed to 2 comply with Rule 18(a) and 20(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 7.) Finally, 3 the magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to “state a cognizable claim against any of the named 4 defendants.” (Id. at 15; see also id. at 8-15.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the 5 First Amended Complaint be dismissed. (Id. at 15.) The magistrate judge noted Plaintiff had 6 previously been granted leave to amend, and he “willfully ignored” the Court’s instructions. (Id.) 7 Thus, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal with prejudice. (Id.) 8 9 The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff on February 27, 2023, and it contained a notice that any objections must be filed within fourteen days of the date of service. 10 (Doc. 36 at 16.) In addition, Plaintiff was informed “failure to file objections within the specified 11 time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id. at 16, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 12 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) To 13 date, no objections have been filed and the time to do so has expired. 14 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court performed a de novo review of the 15 case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 16 Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court 17 ORDERS: 18 1. 19 The Findings and Recommendations filed on February 27, 2023 (Doc. 36), are ADOPTED in full. 20 2. The First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. 21 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and enter judgment against 22 Plaintiff. 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 28, 2023 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.
