Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Samuels v. Thornburg

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 1, 2010

ROBERT EARL SAMUELS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
LYNNE THORNBURG, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a request for reconsideration of the January 8, 2010, order dismissing his complaint for failing to state a colorable claim. Named as defendants were San Bernardino County Probation Officer Thornburg, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, California Correctional Institution and California State Prison-Sacramento. Plaintiff alleged that defendant Thornburg prepared a report falsely stating that plaintiff was a member of the Crip gang.

The court construed plaintiff's complaint as having been brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and found that it failed to state colorable claims for relief against the defendants. In the request for reconsideration, plaintiff alleges that he brought his action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552, the Privacy Act.

The Privacy Act only applies to federal agencies, not state or local agencies and not individuals. See Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1999). For that reason, plaintiff's Privacy Act claims against the defendants named in the complaint are not legally cognizable.

In the motion for reconsideration, plaintiff also argues that he made state law claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." Because plaintiff has stated no colorable federal claims, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over his state law claims.

For the reasons discussed above, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is without merit.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's January 20, 2010, motion for reconsideration (no. 10) is denied.

20100201

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.