Opinion
1:22-cv-00069-ADA-EPG
11-29-2022
CORNEL JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF MADERA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
(Doc. No. 9)
Plaintiff Cornel Jackson is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) 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 April 6, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed, without leave to amend, because Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims that could proceed at this time in light of his ongoing state criminal proceedings. (Doc. No. 9.) Additionally, the assigned Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, which sought to enjoin his state court criminal prosecution, be denied. (Id. at 12.) Those findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days of service. (Id.)
After Plaintiff failed to file any objections, the Court adopted the findings and recommendations on August 11, 2022. (Doc. No. 11.) However, on August 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed objections to the Court's order adopting the findings and recommendations, arguing that he never received a copy of the findings and recommendations and thus could not properly object to them. (Doc. No. 13.) In light of Plaintiff's objections, and in an abundance of caution, the Court reopened the case, vacated the previous order adopting the findings and recommendations, and ordered plaintiff to file objections to the previous findings and recommendations within thirty (30) days of service. (Doc. No. 14.) On September 27, 2022, Plaintiff timely filed objections. (Doc. No. 16.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this 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.
In his objections, Plaintiff states that the Magistrate Judge erred in its interpretation of the complaint concluding that Plaintiff was only challenging the “unlawfully manufactured and false evidence against him”. (Doc. No. 16 at 2.) Plaintiff argues that in his complaint, he is also challenging the “intentionally extreme and/or blatant lawlessness in conduct by the defendants[‘] demonstrated performance in his ongoing state criminal prosecution” which establish an intentional violation of his constitutional rights. (Id.) However, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge addressed the Plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim on the findings and recommendations issued on April 6, 2022. (Doc. No. 9.) The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for malicious prosecution because (1) Plaintiff cannot allege that the case was concluded in his favor because the proceedings are ongoing in state court and (2) neither can Plaintiff allege the additional element that the motive of his state prosecution was to prevent Plaintiff from exercising his constitutional rights. (Doc. No. 9 at 911.).
Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 6, 2022 (Doc. No. 9) are ADOPTED in full;
2. Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief (Doc. Nos. 4, 10) are DENIED;
On May 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion repeating his request that the Court enjoin his state court criminal prosecution. (Doc. No. 10.) That most recently filed motion will be denied for the same reasons identified by the Magistrate Judge in the findings and recommendations.
3. This action is DISMISSED without leave to amend; and
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.