(PC) Felix v. Clandenin et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SCOTT EMERSON FELIX,
Plaintiff,
v.
CLANDENIN, et al.,
Defendants.
No. 1:23-cv-01074 JLT BAM
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE
TO STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE TO OBEY A
COURT ORDER, AND FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE
(Doc. 14)
Scott Emerson Felix is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California
Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the
meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir.
2000). This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On November 19, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order granting
Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal within thirty
(30) days. (Doc. 12.) Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the court’s order would
result in a recommendation for dismissal of this action, with prejudice. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file
an amended complaint or otherwise communicate with the court.
///
Case 1:23-cv-01074-JLT-BAM Document 16 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Therefore, on January 6, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations
recommending dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim, failure to obey
a court order, and for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action. (Doc. 14.) Those findings and
recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were
to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id.) On January 30, 2026, Plaintiff filed a request
for judicial notice and objections. (Doc. 15.)
According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of the
case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes
that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
In his objections and request for judicial notice, Plaintiff asserts that he filed an amended
complaint and motion challenging the order of reassignment to the magistrate judge. (Doc. 15.)
Plaintiff’s assertion is not supported by the docket in this case, and Plaintiff fails to provide any
details or evidentiary support. Thus, any request for judicial notice is denied. Plaintiff also does
not indicate any intent to file an amended complaint. Additionally, Plaintiff objects to the finding
of a failure to state a claim and asserts that he is denied legal assistants, copies, legal supplies,
access to the library, or assistance from the Patients’ Rights Advocate. However, these objections
and assertions, without more, provide no basis to reject the findings and recommendations. To
the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the findings and recommendations, claiming bias by
the assigned magistrate judge, the Court has performed a de novo review of the findings and
recommendations and finds that they are supported by the record. Thus, the Court ORDERS:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 6, 2026, (Doc. 14), are ADOPTED.
2. This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim,
failure to obey a court order, and failure to prosecute; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 5, 2026
Case 1:23-cv-01074-JLT-BAM Document 16 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 2