Opinion
No. 1:19-cv-00321-DAD-GSA (PC)
07-30-2020
BRYAN K. ESCOBAR, Plaintiff, v. C. GARY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. No. 15)
Plaintiff Bryan K. Escobar is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On June 16, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff's first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and recommended that it be dismissed without further leave to amend. (Doc. No. 15.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff (1) failed to allege any facts that could plausibly state a claim against any of the individually named defendants and (2) could not sue state agencies under the Eleventh Amendment. (Id. at 5-12.) With respect to plaintiff's allegations that he is entitled to an earlier release or a recalculation of his sentence, the magistrate judge found that his claims in this regard are barred by the decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994), and dismissed those claims without prejudice to ///// the filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Id. at 7, 12-13.) On July 1, 2020, plaintiff filed his objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 16.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff's objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
It is difficult to decipher what plaintiff is arguing in his objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (See generally Doc. No. 16.) Plaintiff asks the court to review and subpoena his California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation medical records and to "review [his] case for SSI Benefits," and he notes his objections to "[his] credit being taken away." (Id. at 1.) However, plaintiff does not meaningfully dispute the magistrate judge's findings that his FAC fails to state a cognizable claim. Notably, the objections do not dispute that the FAC fails to allege any facts against any of the individually named defendants, or any facts supporting any of the various claims plaintiff appears to be asserting in this action. Lastly, plaintiff does not address the magistrate judge's finding that his claim with respect to his sentence calculation is barred by Heck.
Accordingly,
1. The June 16, 2020 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 15) are adopted in full;IT IS SO ORDERED.
2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a claim, without prejudice to the filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
Dated: July 30 , 2020
/s/_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE