(PC) Mackey v. Government Claims Program et al, No. 1:2020cv01813 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 9 Findings and Recommendations Regarding DISMISSAL of Action signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/19/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID ERNESTO MACKEY, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:20-cv-01813-NONE-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, v. GOVERNMENT CLAIMS PROGRAM, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION (Doc. No. 9) Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff David Ernesto Mackey is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is being detained 20 pursuant to California’s Mentally Disordered Offender (“MDO”) law, California Penal Code 21 §§ 2970, et seq. Individuals detained under the MDO law are considered civil detainees and are 22 not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 23 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). 24 On April 15, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended 25 complaint and issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed 26 based on plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 27 No. 9.) On April 26, 2021, plaintiff timely filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 28 (Doc. No. 10.) 1 1 Plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations merely 2 reiterate the conclusory allegations from the first amended complaint and do not provide any 3 basis for rejecting the reasoning of the pending findings and recommendations. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 5 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 6 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 7 by proper analysis. 8 Accordingly, 9 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 15, 2021, (Doc. No. 9), are 10 11 adopted in full; 2. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable 12 13 14 15 16 claim upon which relief may be granted; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 19, 2021 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.