Sanders v. Hicks

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PHILIP SANDERS, No. 1:22-cv-0577 JLT HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, ROBERT HICKS and J. LARA, DISMISSING THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO 15 Defendants. AMEND, AND DENYING THE MOTION TO AMEND AS MOOT (Docs. 12, 14, and 16) 18 Philip Sanders asserts Robert Hicks and J. Lara violated his civil rights, and he seeks a preliminary injunction directing actions by the Fresno County Sherriff Department and Fresno Superior Court. (Docs. 10, 12.)

21 The assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 14 at 5- 10.) The magistrate judge noted that Plaintiff was previously “provided with guidance and the appropriate legal standards, [but] Plaintiff was unable to cure the deficiencies….” (Id. at 13.)

25 Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend and the motion for preliminary injunction be denied. (Id. at 13; see also id. at 11-13.)

27 Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 15.) Notably, Plaintiff does not dispute the magistrate judge’s finding that he failed to state a cognizable claim in his FAC. (See generally Doc. 15 at 1-4.) Plaintiff also does not dispute the recommendation that a preliminary injunction be denied. (See id.) Rather, Plaintiff’s objections are focused on the recommendation that he not be given leave to amend. (Id at 2.) Plaintiff contends that because he cured some deficiencies identified by the Court with his FAC—including removing his brother as a defendant and alleging facts to support equitable tolling—he should again be granted leave to amend under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 2-4.) Toward this end, Plaintiff concurrently filed a “Request [for] leave to file a second amended complaint attached and logged,” and lodged the proposed pleading. (Docs. 16, 17.)

9 In the Request to Amend, Plaintiff asserts he would cure the deficiencies identified by the magistrate judge by removing reference to the Fourteenth Amendment in his search and seizure claim, omitting a claim asserted under an inapplicable provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and withdrawing his motion for preliminary injunction. (See Doc. 16 at 7.)

13 However, Plaintiff does not explain how these changes would make the claims in his complaint cognizable. A review of the proposed Second Amended Complaint shows Plaintiff repeats the same deficient claims as his FAC. Consequently, the proposed pleading would also be subject to dismissal and leave to amend should not be granted. Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991) (“A district court does not err in denying leave to amend where the amendment would be futile … or where the amended complaint would be subject to dismissal” [citations omitted]); see also Abagninin v. AMVAC Chem. Corp., 545 F.3d 733, 742 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining leave to amend may “be denied for repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendment”).

21 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the matter—including Plaintiff’s objections and additional filings— the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 25 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated December 19, 2023 (Doc. 14) are 26 ADOPTED in full.

27 2. Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.

28 3. The First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend.

1 4. Plaintiff's request to amend (Doc. 16) is terminated as MOOT.

2 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: _ February 9, 2024 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE