Opinion
Case No. CV F-05-1496 AWI LJO.
December 21, 2005
ORDER TO ADOPT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION
Plaintiff Manuel Alcala Farias ("plaintiff") proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this apparent action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("section 1983"). On November 23, 2005, plaintiff filed several combined papers which this Court construed as a complaint ("complaint"). The complaint's apparent caption lists Deputies Lewis, Ochoa and Castillo (collectively "defendants") as defendants but failed to identify their employing law enforcement agency. The complaint appeared to take issue with the arrest of and criminal proceedings against plaintiff's wife. The complaint appeared to make vague references to an attack.
On November 30, 2005, the Magistrate Judge dismissed the complaint based on its numerous pleading deficiencies, failure to state a cognizable claim and apparent attempt to pursue claims for non-plaintiffs and to vex defendants. In response to the order, on December 12, 2005, plaintiff filed a form amended complaint ("amended complaint") which appears to name the same defendants as plaintiff's original complaint. The amended complaint is as unclear as plaintiff's original complaint and appears to take issue with the arrest of plaintiff's wife. The amended complaint appears to seek return of money for bail for plaintiff's family members. In addition, with the amended complaint, plaintiff burdens this Court's record with hundreds of pages of impertinent documents.
On December 14, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that recommended the court dismiss this action without prejudice on grounds that the amended complaint failed to: (1) satisfy pleading, standing and real-party-in-interest requirements; and (2) state a cognizable claim. On December 19, 2005, plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff's objections, the court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Plaintiff's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis. In the objections, plaintiff continues to indicate that this action concerns his wife's arrest. As explained by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff does not have standing to file an action concerning alleged constitutional violations that may have happened to his wife.
Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:
1. The Magistrate Judge's December 14, 2005 Findings and Recommendations are adopted in full;
2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.