Phillips v. Reinhart et al, No. 1:2020cv01034 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 8 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing First Amended Complaint Without Leave to Amend signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/23/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
Phillips v. Reinhart et al Doc. 9 Case 1:20-cv-01034-DAD-SAB Document 9 Filed 11/23/20 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELCHESTER PHILLIPS, JR., 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. 1:20-cv-01034-DAD-SAB Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL REINHART, California Superior Court Judge at Kings County Superior Court, and KINGS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. No. 8) Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff Melchester Phillips, Jr., is a pretrial detainee in the Kings County Jail proceeding 20 pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 22 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On July 31, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 24 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and determined that it failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. (Doc. 25 No. 5.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file a first amended complaint to attempt to cure the 26 deficiencies identified by the screening order within thirty days. (Id. at 12–13.) Plaintiff Phillips 27 timely mailed an amended complaint to this court, which was entered on the docket on August 28 24, 2020. (Doc. No. 7.) 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-01034-DAD-SAB Document 9 Filed 11/23/20 Page 2 of 2 1 On September 3, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended 2 complaint and issued findings and recommendations, recommending that the action be dismissed 3 with prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim and without leave to amend. (Doc. No. 8.) 4 The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any 5 objections were to be filed within thirty days. (Id. at 12–13.) No objections were filed, and the 6 time to do so has now passed. 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 8 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 9 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 10 Accordingly, 11 1. 12 13 The findings and recommendations issued on September 3, 2020 (Doc. No. 8) are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is dismissed without leave to amend due to 14 plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim and because the granting of further 15 leave to amend would be futile; and 16 17 18 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 23, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.