From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shannon v. Bachand

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 30, 2022
2:22-cv-1066-KJM-EFB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2022)

Opinion

2:22-cv-1066-KJM-EFB (PC)

10-30-2022

SETH PETER SHANNON, Plaintiff, v. VICTOR BACHAND, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff, a county jail inmate proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On August 5, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, except as noted in this order the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. The court writes separately to clarify that, as the magistrate judge correctly found, plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim only accrues, if at all, if the legal proceedings he is currently facing terminate in his favor. ECF No. 6 at 3 (citation omitted). The court is unable to determine from the allegations of the complaint whether the malicious prosecution claim alleged by plaintiff is frivolous on its face. Cf. Washington v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, 833 F.3d 1048, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2016) (discussing dismissals under Heckv. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)). For that reason, the claim will be dismissed as premature.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 5, 2022, are adopted in full.

2. This action is dismissed as premature and due to the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

3. The clerk of court is directed to close this case.


Summaries of

Shannon v. Bachand

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 30, 2022
2:22-cv-1066-KJM-EFB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2022)
Case details for

Shannon v. Bachand

Case Details

Full title:SETH PETER SHANNON, Plaintiff, v. VICTOR BACHAND, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 30, 2022

Citations

2:22-cv-1066-KJM-EFB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2022)