United States District Court, E.D. California
April 8, 2015
ABDUL GILL, Plaintiff,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se, and in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21). The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case "at any time, " if the action is legally "frivolous or malicious, " fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
The court's prior orders dismissed plaintiff's complaints for suing immune defendants, and for failing to allege facts showing that he had suffered a legal wrong - for example, that his benefits were terminated without due process - or that he was entitled to any relief. See ECF Nos. 4 & 6. The Second Amended Complaint ("complaint") (ECF No. 7), makes no attempt to remedy the defects identified in the previous complaints. Instead, it simply indicates that plaintiff's medical benefits have been terminated, and that he is suffering as a consequence. Thus, the complaint once again fails to allege facts showing that plaintiff has suffered any legal wrong that this federal court can redress.
The court is aware that figuring out how to properly present one's grievances can be difficult. It may be that plaintiff would benefit by asking for assistance from a legal services organization such as Legal Services of Northern California, 515-12th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 (Tel: XXX-XXX-XXXX), or the Voluntary Legal Services Program of Northern California (Client Help Line: XXX-XXX-XXXX). However, plaintiff has, for the third time, failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the complaint should be dismissed, but this time with prejudice.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991)