# Briggs v. Fenstermaker

> District Court, E.D. California · April 25, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10052249

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** April 25, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10052249

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 JOHNNY LEE BRIGGS, Case No. 1:23-cv-00146-JLT-SAB
11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL AND
12 v. DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
13 DAVID FENSTERMAKER, ET AL.,
(Docs. 13, 14, 15)
14 Defendants.

15
16 Johnny Lee Briggs initiated this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on
17 January 31, 2023, against David Fenstermaker, the Community Regional Medical Center, and the
18 Medical Board of Examiners. (Doc. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302.
20 The assigned magistrate judge screened the complaint, found Plaintiff’s claims were
21 Heck-barred,1 and issued findings and recommendations to dismiss the complaint, without
22 prejudice. (Doc. 11.) Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations and then
23 filed a first amended complaint. (Docs. 12, 13.) After screening the first amended complaint, the
24 assigned magistrate judge issued amended findings and recommendations, recommending that the
25 amended complaint be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim, and that this
26

27 1 Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), precludes a § 1983 claim based on actions which
would “render a conviction or sentence invalid” where that conviction has not been reversed,
28 expunged, or called into question by issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
1 | action be dismissed. (Doc. 14.) The findings and recommendations permitted Plaintiff fourteen
2 | days to file any objections. (/d.) Plaintiff did so. (Doc. 15.)
3 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708
4 | F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. Plaintiff's
5 | objections simply indicate that he has a state habeas matter and some other dismissal motion that
6 | will be heard in state court in late April 2023. (Doc. 15.) The objections do not meaningfully call
7 | into question the findings and recommendations. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the
8 | Court finds the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
9 | Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:
10 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated April 7, 2023 (Doc. 14) are
11 ADOPTED IN FULL.
12 2. Plaintiff's first amended complaint (Doc. 13) is DISMISSED, without prejudice,
13 for failure to state a claim.
14 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
15
16 IT IS SO ORDERED.
17 | Dated: _ April 25, 2023 Charis [Tourn
TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10052249. Public record. Not legal advice.