1 2 3 4 5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 JESSE CHACON, JR., ) NO. EDCV 20-1898-JWH (KS) 11 ) Plaintiff, 12 ) v. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND ) 13 ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED RALPH DIAZ, et al, 14 ) STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

) Defendants. 15 ) _________________________________ 16

17 18 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, the Report and 19 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (the “Report”), and Plaintiff’s Objections 20 to the Magistrate Judge’s Report (“Objections”). Pursuant to

(b)(1)(C) and 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo review of those 22 portions of the Report to which objections have been stated. 23 The Objections largely reiterate Plaintiff’s earlier positions regarding the Magistrate 24 Judge’s authority and the propriety of the Eastern District’s decision to transfer the action to 25 the Central District. The remainder of the Objections consist of new arguments, which Plaintiff 26 did not previously present, concerning the adequacy of the Complaint. The Court briefly 27 addresses the merits of these arguments below. 28 1 First, Plaintiff challenges the Report’s conclusion that the Complaint does not support a 2 reasonable inference that Defendant Armenta is liable for conspiring to violate Plaintiff’s First 3 Amendment rights. Plaintiff asserts that the Complaint’s allegation that Defendant Armenta 4 “joined this conspiracy to arbitrarily reject group appeals by the denial of a group appeal on 5 04/03/20” is sufficient to allege that Defendant Armenta personally participated in a conspiracy 6 to deprive Plaintiff of his First Amendment rights. (See Objections at 6.) However, the 7 allegation that Defendant Armenta rejected a group appeal in April 2020—and the Complaint 8 does not allege that this group appeal involved Plaintiff—does not support the inference that 9 Defendant Armenta personally participated in depriving, or conspiring to deprive, Plaintiff of 10 his constitutional rights. Accordingly, the Report rightly concluded that the Complaint is 11 devoid of allegations that Defendant Armenta personally participated in a deprivation of 12 Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The Magistrate Judge initially concluded that Plaintiff could 13 correct this defect with amendment, but Plaintiff refused to file a First Amended Complaint. 14 Plaintiff also challenges the Report’s conclusion that the Complaint does not state a First 15 Amendment claim. Specifically, in the Objections, Plaintiff contends that the emergency 16 regulations banning group appeals improperly discriminate against prisoner speech on the basis 17 of content or viewpoint, in violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to free speech. 18 (Objections at 6-8.) However, the Complaint does not mention—much less allege—content or 19 viewpoint discrimination. (Complaint at CM/ECF Page ID 7, 11.) 20 Finally, in the Objections, Plaintiff contends that the Complaint states a claim for 21 conspiracy because it alleges that Defendants committed acts that they were unlikely to 22 undertake without an agreement between them. (Objections at 8-9) (quoting Lacey v. Maricopa 23 Cty.,

(9th Cir. 2012)). The Complaint alleges that, in March and April 2020, two 24 prison officials at Ironwood State Prison (“ISP”) rejected group appeals (only one of which 25 involved Plaintiff), and, at some unspecified time, the California Department of Corrections 26 and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) enacted regulations banning group appeals. These allegations do 27 not support an inference that Defendants were unlikely to take these actions absent an 28 agreement between them or that all seven Defendants—the two ISP officials in Blythe, CA and 1 || the five CDCR officials in Sacramento, CA—had reached an agreement to violate □□□□□□□□□□ □ 2 || constitutional rights. Again, the Magistrate Judge initially concluded that Plaintiff could 3 || remedy this defect with amendment, but Plaintiff refused to file a First Amended Complaint. 4 Ultimately, the crux of Plaintiff’s argument appears to be that other prisoners have filed 5 || civil rights challenges to one or more of the government actions challenged in the Complaint, 6 || and these other prisoners’ complaints were served out. The fact that another prisoner may have 7 || stated a claim about the same government actions at issue in Plaintiff's Complaint does not 8 || compel the conclusion that Plaintiff states a claim about these actions in his Complaint. Indeed, 9 || the Magistrate Judge initially dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend, suggesting that it 10 || was possible for Plaintiff to amend his pleading to state a viable claim, or claims, that would 11 || warrant service on one or more defendants. Plaintiff, however, repeatedly refused to comply 12 || with the Magistrate Judge’s orders. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge concluded that granting 13 || Plaintiff further opportunities to amend the Complaint would be futile. 14 The Court, having completed its review of Plaintiff's Objections, accepts the findings 15 || and recommendations set forth in the Report. IT IS ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered 16 || dismissing Plaintiffs federal claims with prejudice and his state claims without prejudice. 17 18 || DATED: January 27, 2021 GW 19 0 JOHN W. HOLCOMB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-