1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID ALLEN, No. 1:23-cv-00946-KES-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. ACTION 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Doc. 16 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff David Allen is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action filed pursuant to

. This matter was referred to a United States 19 magistrate judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 Plaintiff initiated this action on June 23, 2023. Doc. 1. He filed a first amended 21 complaint on October 19, 2023 (“FAC”), which the assigned magistrate judge screened. 22 Docs. 8, 10. The screening order found that plaintiff’s FAC failed to state a cognizable claim for 23 relief and granted plaintiff thirty days to file a second amended complaint. Doc. 10. On May 28, 24 2024, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”). Doc. 14. On August 22, 2024, the 25 Court screened plaintiff’s SAC, found no cognizable claim, and issued findings and 26 recommendations recommending dismissal without leave to amend for failure to state a 27 cognizable claim for relief. Doc. 16. The findings and recommendations were served on 28 plaintiff and contained notice that objections were to be filed within fourteen days of service.

1 at 7. Plaintiff filed objections on October 7, 2024. Doc. 19. 2 In accordance with

(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of 3 this case. After carefully reviewing the file, including plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds the 4 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 5 In his objections, plaintiff contends the magistrate judge applied the incorrect legal 6 standard for deliberate indifference under the Fourteenth Amendment. Doc. 19. Plaintiff 7 directs the Court to Castro v. County of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 2016), noting that 8 an objective standard applies as to whether the defendants acted unreasonably under the 9 circumstances. See Doc. 19 at 3. Plaintiff also asserts he should be granted leave to file a third 10 amended complaint. Id. at 4. 11 The magistrate judge applied the appropriate legal standard. In the findings and 12 recommendations, the magistrate judge cited to Gordon v. County of Orange,

(9th Cir. 2018), and set forth the correct legal standard applicable to plaintiff’s claim under the 14 Fourteenth Amendment. See Doc. 16 at 5. In Gordon, the Ninth Circuit noted that “claims for 15 violations of the right to adequate medical care brought by pretrial detainees against individual 16 defendants under the Fourteenth Amendment must be evaluated under an objective deliberate 17 indifference standard.” Gordon, 888 F.3d at 1124–25 (internal quotation and citations omitted). 18 Although at one point the findings and recommendations referenced the Eighth Amendment, 19 Doc. 16 at 6, this single misstatement does not undermine the magistrate judge’s overall 20 conclusion that plaintiff has not plausibly demonstrated a Fourteenth Amendment violation,

21 at 7. In making this determination, the magistrate judge relied upon other cases that applied the 22 Fourteenth Amendment standard applicable to pretrial detainees. See Doc. 16 at 6–7. 23 Dismissal of the SAC is warranted because plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory and 24 lack sufficient factual content to support his Fourteenth Amendment claim. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 25

(2009) (citation omitted). Despite having had multiple opportunities to do 26 so, plaintiff fails to sufficiently set forth each defendant’s challenged conduct and the alleged 27 causal link of such conduct to a substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff, which is necessary 28 “to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct 1 | alleged.” 7d. As plaintiff has had the prior opportunity to amend his complaint and has been 2 | unable to state a cognizable claim, granting further leave to amend would be futile and is 3 | therefore not warranted. See Hartmann y. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab.,

, 1130 4 | (9th Cir. 2013). 5 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 6 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 22, 2024, Doc. 16, are 7 ADOPTED IN FULL. 8 2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 9 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 10 11 12 | TIS SO ORDERED. _ 13 Dated: _ May 22, 2025 4h 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28