(PC) Sandoval v. Diaz et al, No. 1:2020cv01374 - Document 33 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 26 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Action signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/22/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
(PC) Sandoval v. Diaz et al Doc. 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JULIO SANDOVAL, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:20-cv-01374-NONE-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RALPH M. DIAZ, et al., (Doc. No. 26) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Julio Sandoval (“plaintiff”) is a state inmate proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to 19 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 Plaintiff’s claims arise from a prison courtyard fight in which plaintiff alleges that he was 21 attacked and later falsely reported to be the aggressor by other inmates and prison personnel. 22 Based upon those allegations plaintiff asserts claims that prison officials violated his 23 constitutional rights by filing a false rules violation report and by failing to protect plaintiff from 24 the other inmate(s) involved in the courtyard altercation. Plaintiff’s original complaint and first 25 amended complaints were both found to violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). 26 On May 7, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations 27 recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s further failure to comply with 28 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 26.) This conclusion 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 was based on the fact that plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) was found to be “a 2 long narrative consisting of opaque factual allegations” that “repeatedly fails to connect [] factual 3 allegations to the claims [plaintiff] is attempting to bring.” (Id. at 9.) Further, the magistrate 4 judge concluded that plaintiff’s SAC did not adequately allege facts sufficient to bring either a 5 false rules violation claim or a failure to protect claim. 6 7 8 9 Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within twenty-one (21) days. (Id.) On June 1, 2021, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations along with a motion requesting a stay of these proceedings because plaintiff argued that he needed more time to copy his exhibits in support of his objections. (Doc. Nos. 28, 29.) The assigned magistrate judge entered an order on June 3, 2021, 10 construing the motion as a request for an extension of time to respond to the findings and 11 12 13 14 15 recommendations and directing plaintiff to file any exhibits in support of his objections within thirty days. (Doc. No. 30.) On June 3, 2021, plaintiff filed further objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 31.) Plaintiff’s objections repeat his legal claims but do not address or remedy the shortcomings of his filing as described in the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), this court has conducted a 16 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 17 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 18 by proper analysis. 19 Accordingly, 20 1. The findings and recommendations entered May 7, 2021 (Doc. No. 26) are adopted in full; 21 22 2. This case is dismissed with prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and failure to state a claim; and 23 24 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose of closing the case and then to close this case. 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 22, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.