Christ v. Hartley

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING 22 Findings and Recommendations, DISMISSING Action (Strike) and DENYING 19 Motion to Dismiss, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 02/20/2013. CASE CLOSED(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

JON CHRIST,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
JAMES HARTLEY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11cv00705 AWI DLB PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING
ACTION AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT
(Document 22)

16
17

Plaintiff Jon Christ (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department

18

of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil rights

19

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action was removed from the Santa County Superior

20
21
22

Court on April 11, 2011, and transferred to this Court on April 29, 2011.
On January 9, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations to
dismiss the action for failure to state a claim and deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as moot.

23

The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice to the
24
25
26
27
28

parties that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty
days. Plaintiff filed objections on January 25, 2013.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted
a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s
1

1
2

objections, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record
and by proper analysis.

3
4

In Plaintiff’s objections, he argues, for the first time, that Defendant violated his equal
protection rights by depriving him of access to electrical appliances that other inmates are

5

permitted to have. However, a new theory cannot properly be raised in objections to Findings
6
7
8

and Recommendations. Greenhow v. Secretary of HHS, 863 F.2d 633, 638-39 (9th Cir. 1988),
overruled on other grounds by United States v. Hardesty, 977 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir.1992).
Moreover, as explained in the Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff requests only

9
10

injunctive relief. Such relief remains moot because Plaintiff has been transferred to a different

11

prison. 1
The Court notes that Plaintiff states, also for the first time, that his property has now been

12
13

destroyed. He explains that he received a first level response on January 15, 2013, indicating

14

that his property has now been destroyed. He also indicates that his appeal as to the destruction

15

of property is only at the second level of review. The destruction of property issue may

16

ultimately lead to cognizable claims, though not in the action currently before the Court.

17
18

In conclusion, Plaintiff’s objections do not change the nature of the action before the
Court. The Findings and Recommendations remain supported by the record and proper analysis.

19

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
20

1.

21

The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 9, 2013, are ADOPTED in
full;

22

2.

23

This action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim for which relief can be
granted;

24
25
26
27
1

28

Plaintiff filed an untimely opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in which he also references an equal
protection violation. However, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief remains moot.
2

1

3.

2

This dismissal is subject to the “three-strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g); and

3

4.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT (Document 19).

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 20, 2013

8

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

9

0m8i788

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3