1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAJI KITCHEN, No. 1:20-cv-0155 NONE JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS THE

13 v. COMPLAINT 14 C. BROUSSARD, et al., (Doc. Nos. 1, 10) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Raji Kitchen, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this civil rights action 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages and declaratory relief as a result of a decision made by 19 defendants—officials at the California City Correctional Facility—to deny plaintiff’s request for 20 an early release date. (Doc. No. 1 at 3–9; see also id., Ex. F.) Plaintiff claims that defendants 21 miscalculated the credits he had earned entitling him to an early release in violation of California 22 law and regulations, which he asserts in turn also violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment 23 rights. (Id. at 3–9.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 24 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 25 The assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 26 § 1915A, and found that plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim for relief and that granting 27 further leave to amend would be futile. (Doc. No. 10 at 7–8.) Accordingly, the magistrate judge 28 recommended that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. (Id.) Plaintiff has filed objections 1 | to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 11.) 2 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 3 | conducted a de novo reviewed of this case. The undersigned finds the pending findings and 4 | recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis and plaintiff's objections to 5 | be unpersuasive. In his objections, plaintiff raises various arguments that have been addressed by 6 | the magistrate judge in the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 11 at 4-8; see Doc. No. 10 7 | at5—7.) The court need not recap all of the magistrate judge’s analyses of plaintiff's arguments, 8 | but plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment claim deserves attention since plaintiff argues the issue 9 | extensively in his objections. As the Supreme Court has held, “States are under no duty to offer 10 | parole to their prisoners,” but when “a State creates a liberty interest” by offering parole, the due 11 | process right plaintiff entitled to is nonetheless “minimal.” Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 12 220 (2011). That is, plaintiffis entitled to “an opportunity to be heard” and “‘a statement of the 13 | reasons why parole was denied,” but no more. Jd. Here, plaintiff's allegations and exhibits show 14 | that after plaintiffs request for release on parole was initially denied, plaintiff appealed that 15 | denial several times; each time, defendants issued a written explanation of their decision 16 | affirming the initial denial of parole. (Doc. No. 1 at 4-8, Exs. B-F.) Thus, plaintiff's Fourteenth 17 | Amendment rights were not violated with respect to the denial of parole. It follows that the 18 | pending findings and recommendations should be adopted. 19 Accordingly, the court ORDERS as follows: 20 1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 9, 2020 (Doc. No. 10) are 21 ADOPTED in full; 22 2. The complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice; and 23 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose of 24 closing the case, then to enter judgment and to close the case. 25 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ *° | Dated: _Mareh 1, 2021 Yel A Lange 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28