setting forth 10 elements of class-of-one equal-protection claim
How later courts described this case
- setting forth 10 elements of class-of-one equal-protection claim
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JARVIS BROWN, No. 1:20-cv-00204-NONE-SAB (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
13 v. RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED
14 ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN, et al., WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 23)
16
17 Plaintiff Jarvis Brown is a federal inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
18 civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
19 Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This action proceeds on plaintiff’s second amended complaint
20 against fifteen named and four Doe defendants for violations of plaintiff’s Fifth and Eighth
21 Amendment rights. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
22 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
23 On March 31, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations
24 recommending that plaintiff’s second amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend.
25 (Doc. No. 23.) Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained
26 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at
27 17.) After receiving an extension of time, plaintiff filed objections on May 14, 2021. (Doc. No.
28 26.)
1 Plaintiff objects to the findings and recommendations on the grounds that they did not
2 evaluate plaintiff’s equal-protection claim brought under the Fifth Amendment. (Id. at 9.)
3 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint’s claim brought under the Fifth Amendment states that it
4 includes a class-of-one equal-protection claim; however, the complaint does not provide any
5 factual allegations concerning the treatment of a similarly situated group. (See Doc. No. 22 at 8–
6 18.) Therefore, plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim for violation of his equal-protection
7 rights under the Fifth Amendment. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 93, (1976) (“Equal
8 protection analysis in the Fifth Amendment area is the same as that under the Fourteenth
9 Amendment.”); Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1167 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth
10 elements of class-of-one equal-protection claim).
11 Plaintiff also objects to the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his claim for
12 the alleged failure to protect. Plaintiff contends in his objections that defendants took affirmative
13 acts in labeling plaintiff a sex offender, thus threatening his safety. (Doc. No. 26 at 8–9.)
14 However, as the magistrate judge noted, plaintiff does not allege that those defendants publicly
15 labeled him as a sex offender. (Doc. No. 23 at 14.) Additionally, plaintiff’s objections do not
16 identify any flaw in the magistrate judge’s reasoning with respect to supervisory liability. (Id. at
17 5–9.)
18 Finally, plaintiff requests further leave to amend. (Id. at 10.) However, the magistrate
19 judge correctly found that plaintiff had already been twice granted leave to amend after the
20 deficiencies in his complaints were identified and had still failed to state a claim. Based upon
21 those circumstances it was appropriately determined that the granting of further leave to amend
22 would be futile
23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
24 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the
25 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper
26 analysis.
27 /////
28 /////
1 Accordingly,
2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 31, 2021, (Doc. No. 23), are adopted
3 in full;
4 2. Plaintiff's second amended complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim, without
5 leave to amend; and
6 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge for the purposes of closing this
7 case and then to close this case.
8 | IT IS SOORDERED. a “
9 ji je Ff;
Dated: _ August 19, 2021 wae
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28