(PC) Miller v. Amador County Jail

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BOBBY JOE MILLER, No. 2:21-CV-2132-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AMADOR COUNTY JAIL, 15 Defendant.

17 Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern District of California local rules.

20 On September 12, 2022, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on the parties and contained notice that the parties may file objections within fourteen days after service. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.1 24 Plaintiff does not address the findings and recommendations’ legal conclusion that the complaint lacks facts regarding a policy or custom causing plaintiff’s injuries. See Objs., ECF No. 25. Instead, plaintiff reiterates the three alleged harms that occurred in the jail, while Plaintiff’s objections have been incorrectly docketed as a first amended complaint.

28 See ECF No. 25.

1 | explaining he lacks access to the law library, which prevents him from responding with legal || authorities. /d. The court notes plaintiff also raised the lack of access in his opposition to the || motion to dismiss. See Opp’n at 2, ECF No. 18. In his opposition, plaintiff claimed defendant || was intentionally depriving him of access to legal resources, so he needed a court order to obtain || access. /d. at 3. Plaintiff's remarks could be liberally construed as a request to file a supplement || complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) (allowing || supplemental complaint “setting out any transactions, occurrence, or event that happened after the | date of the pleading to be supplemented”); Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 473 (9th Cir. 1988).

9 || Because a supplemental complaint could conceivably state a First Amendment claim for lack of || law library access, the court adopts the findings and recommendations and expressly refers the || access issue to the Magistrate Judge for any appropriate proceedings consistent with this order.

12 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304(f), this || Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the | findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 12, 2022, are adopted | in full; 18 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 14, is granted; 19 3. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is dismissed with leave to amend; 20 4. Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint within 30 days of the date of | this order; and 22 5. The matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further || proceedings, including assessing plaintiff's request for leave to file a supplemental complaint || addressing law library access.

25 || DATED: March 31, 2023. *° l eae Murl ¢ J 27 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE