Opinion
1:21-cv-01274-DAD-JLT (PC)
11-14-2021
BENJAMIN G. LIRA, Plaintiff, v. SECURUSTECH.NET, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION (DOC. NO. 10)
Plaintiff Benjamin G. Lira is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action under 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 September 15, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. No. 10.) In particular, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff cannot adequately allege that defendants were acting under color of state law, and therefore, he cannot state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id. at 3-4.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and provided notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. Plaintiff filed untimely objections on November 8, 2021. (Doc. No. 11.) 1
Out of an abundance of caution, this court reviewed plaintiffs late-filed objections. Therein, plaintiff contends that the contract between Kings County Jail and defendant Securustech.net to provide telephone services is a sufficient basis upon which to allege that defendant Securustech.net acted under color of law when changing the telephone system. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff also reiterates his allegations that the change of the telephone system has made attorney-client calls more difficult. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff s arguments are unpersuasive. The magistrate judge considered the fact of defendant Securustech.net's contract with Kings County Jail to provide phone services in the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 10.) This court concurs with the magistrate judge's finding that plaintiff does not allege that the government controlled, compelled, or coerced defendants to take actions that violate plaintiffs rights and that there is not a close nexus between the government and the phone system transition such that defendant Securustech.net's actions can be treated as state action. (Id. at 3-4.) As such, defendant Securustech.net and its employees cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for any deprivations of rights plaintiff alleges.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 15, 2021 (Doc. No. 10) are adopted in full;
2. This action is dismissed with prejudice due to plaintiffs failure to state a claim; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 2