1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LADARIOUS DOWNS, Case No. 2:23-cv-02271-PA (PVC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 LOS ANGELES SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17

18 19 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended 20 Complaint, the records herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United 21 States Magistrate Judge (“Report”). Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo 22 review of those portions of the Report to which objections have been made. 23 The Report recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint 24 with leave to file a Third Amended Complaint that is limited to four claims. (ECF 25 No. 25.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report (ECF No. 26 28) do not warrant a change to the Report’s findings or recommendation. 27 Plaintiff objects that he has a cognizable retaliation claim. (ECF No. 28 at 3- 28 4.) As the Report found, however, Plaintiff’s has not provided enough allegations 1 to give rise to a plausible claim of retaliation. (ECF No. 25 at 17.) Plaintiff’s 2 objection does not overcome this finding. 3 Plaintiff objects that he has a cognizable claim of denial of access to the 4 courts, based on seizure of his legal materials. (ECF No. 28 at 4.) As the Report 5 found, however, to the extent this claim implicated Plaintiff’s ability to mount a 6 viable criminal defense, it likely is barred by Heck v. Humphrey,

, 7 486-87 (1994). (ECF No. 25 at 18.) Plaintiff objects that his claim implicates, 8 instead, his criminal appeal and civil rights actions. (ECF No. 28 at 4.) This 9 objection does not overcome the Magistrate Judge’s warning to Plaintiff that he 10 must identify a “(1) a nonfrivolous underlying claim that was allegedly 11 compromised ‘to show that the “arguable” nature of the claim is more than 12 hope’; (2) the official acts that frustrated the litigation of that underlying claim; and 13 (3) a ‘remedy available under the access claim and presently unique to it’ that could 14 not be awarded by bringing a separate action on an existing claim.” (ECF No. 18 at 15 17 (quoting Christopher v. Harbury,

(2002).) Plaintiff has not 16 provided such allegations. 17 Plaintiff objects that, for his state law claims, he complied with the 18 administrative exhaustion requirement of the California Government Claims Act 19 (“CGCA”). (ECF No. 28 at 5.) This objection does not overcome the Report’s 20 finding that, “[e]ven assuming that the claims were submitted to the proper entity, 21 Plaintiff does not describe the claims’ substance, so it is not possible on this record 22 to determine whether the claims alleged are fairly encompassed by his CGCA 23 submission, or whether they included a demand for a sum certain.” (ECF No. 25 at 24 28.) 25 Plaintiff objects that he has a cognizable claim for conspiracy. (ECF No. 28 26 at 5-6.) To the contrary, as the Report found, “Plaintiff does not allege that there 27 was an agreement or meeting of the minds to violate his constitutional rights.” 28 (ECF No. 25 at 26.) 1 In sum, Plaintiff's objections are overruled. 2 IT IS ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation is accepted and 3 || approved; and (2) the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed with leave to file a 4 || Third Amended Complaint that is limited to the four claims identified in the Report. 5 6 || DATED: June 18, 2024 . 7 | Cn □□ 9 ° neha DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28