(PC) Turner v. Gopal

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 TRE’AUNA L. TURNER, ) Case No.: 1: 23-cv-1472 JLT BAM (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN PART THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND ) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 14 S. GOPAL, et al., ) THIS CASE ) 15 Defendants. ) (Doc. 11) ) 16 ) 17 Tre’auna Turner initiated this action seeking to hold the defendants liable for violations of her 18 civil rights by medical staff and correctional officers at Central California Women’s Facility. (Doc. 1.) 19 The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found 20 Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 9 at 4-11.) The 21 magistrate judge observed that Plaintiff combined unrelated claims against unrelated parties. (Id. at 422 5.) In addition, the magistrate judge observed that it was unclear whether Plaintiff sought to challenge 23 disciplinary write-ups and disciplinary proceedings, which she believed were unlawful. (Id. at 5.) The 24 magistrate judge also found “Plaintiff’s damage allegations expressly implicate the validity of her 25 confinement,” and were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). (Id. at 7.) The Court 26 granted Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. (See id. at 7.) However, the U.S. Postal 27 Service returned the Screening Order as “Undeliverable, Unable to Forward” on March 25, 2024. 28 After Plaintiff did not file a Notice of Change of Address, the magistrate judge issued Findings 1 and Recommendations, supporting that the action be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 11.) The 2 magistrate judge reiterated the findings in the screening order, again finding that Plaintiff’s claims 3 were mis-joined and that she failed to state a claim. (Doc. 11 at 5-13.) The magistrate judge found 4 terminating sanctions were appropriate for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action and failure to obey 5 the Court’s order to file an amended complaint, after considering the factors identified by the Ninth 6 Circuit. (Id. at 13-14.) Although the Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff at 7 the only address on record, the U.S. Postal Service again returned the document as undeliverable. 8 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), the Court performed a de novo review of the action. 9 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the finding that Plaintiff failed to state a 10 cognizable claim is supported by proper analysis. Likewise, the finding that terminating sanctions are 11 appropriate are supported by the record and properly analysis. However, it is unclear that Plaintiff 12 could not cure pleading deficiencies identified in the Screening Order, such that the action should be 13 dismissed without prejudice.1 Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff stated claims that were barred by Heck, 14 the dismissal on such grounds should be without prejudice. See Washington v. L.A. County Sheriff’s 15 Dep’t, 883 F.3d 1048, 1056 (9th Cir. 2016) (“a Heck dismissal is made without prejudice”); see also 16 Ronje v. King, 667 Fed. Appx. 968, 969 (9th Cir. 2016) (where the plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim 17 barred by Heck, the district court erred in dismissing the action with prejudice and the matter was 18 remanded “for entry of dismissal without prejudice”). Dismissal without prejudice is also a suitable 19 sanction for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. See Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496-97 (9th Cir. 1984) 20 (“dismissal without prejudice is a more easily justified sanction for failure to prosecute”). For these 21 reasons, the Court declines to dismiss the action with prejudice. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 22 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on June 12, 2024 (Doc. 14) are ADOPTED 23 in part. 24 2. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 25 /// 26 /// [27] 28 1 The magistrate judge initially found Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend to cure the pleading deficiencies, which strongly suggests leave to amend was not entirely futile. (See Doc. 9 at 12.) 1 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. [2] 3 || IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ July 3, 2024 Charis [Tourn 5 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE