McDonald v. Yates et al

Filing 34

ORDER Adopting 30 Findings and Recommendations and Denying 25 Motion for Transfer to Medical Facility for Lack of Jurisdiction; ORDER Directing Clerk's Office to Courtesy Serve Receiver's Office With this Order and Documents 25 and 30, and Requesting that Receiver's Office Review Plaintiff's Allegations, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 8/11/11. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 JIMMY MCDONALD, CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00730-OWW-SKO PC 9 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION FOR TRANSFER TO MEDICAL FACILITY FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 10 v. 11 J. A. YATES, et al., 12 (Docs. 25 and 30) Defendants. 13 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO COURTESY SERVE RECEIVER’S OFFICE WITH THIS ORDER AND DOCUMENTS 25 AND 30, AND REQUESTING THAT RECEIVER’S OFFICE REVIEW PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS 14 15 16 / 17 Plaintiff Jimmy McDonald, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 24, 2009. The matter was referred to 19 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 11, 2011, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s motion seeking an order 21 requiring prison officials to transfer him to a medical facility be denied for lack of jurisdiction. In 22 light of the seriousness of Plaintiff’s allegations, the Magistrate Judge informed Plaintiff that if he 23 would like the Court to send a copy of his motion to the Receiver’s Office and request that it look 24 into the allegation that Plaintiff’s medical needs are not being met, the Court would do so.1 On 25 /// 26 27 1 28 The Magistrate Judge informed Plaintiff that the Court’s action would be limited to requesting that the Receiver’s Office look into Plaintiff’s allegations. 1 1 August 1, 2011, Plaintiff filed objections to the recommendation and stated that he would like the 2 Receiver’s Office to be notified of the situation. 3 In his objections, Plaintiff requested an extension of time, apparently to file another objection 4 once he receives a response to his inmate appeal. The request is denied. Plaintiff has not shown 5 good cause for a further extension of time. The response to his inmate appeal is not relevant to 6 denial of his motion. The Court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought and a pending response 7 from prison officials has no bearing on this jurisdictional issue. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 9 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 10 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS 11 HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations filed on July 11, 2011, in full; 13 2. Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing that he be transferred to a medical facility is 14 15 DENIED for lack of jurisdiction; 3. In light of the seriousness of Plaintiff’s allegations and his request for such 16 notification, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve a courtesy copy of this 17 order and court record documents 25 and 30 on J. Clark Kelso, Receiver, California 18 Prison Health Care Receivership; and 19 20 4. The Receiver is REQUESTED to look into Plaintiff’s allegation that his current medical needs are very serious and are not being treated properly by prison officials. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: August 11, 2011 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?