Miller v. Brown et al

Filing 24

ORDER Adopting 21 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Denial of Plaintiff's Motions for an Order Enforcing Administrative Judgment re 13 . 19 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/27/13. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL ANTHONY MILLER,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
EDMUND G. BROWN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01589-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTIONG FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DENIAL
OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR AN ORDER
ENFORCING ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENT
(ECF Nos. 13, 19, 21)

17

Plaintiff Michael Anthony Miller (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

18

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff also asserts a federal RICO claim pursuant to 18

19

U.S.C. § 1961. Plaintiff initiated this action in the Sacramento Division of the United States District

20

Court for the Eastern District of California on May 3, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) The action was transferred

21

to the Fresno Division of this court on September 27, 2012. (ECF No. 15.)

22

On August 2, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that

23

Plaintiff’s motions for an order enforcing administrative judgment, which were filed on September 4,

24

2012, and December 3, 2012, be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff

25

and contained notice that any objections should be filed within thirty days. On August 23, 2013,

26

Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

27
28
1

1

In his objections, Plaintiff reasserts his entitlement to an order enforcing a Parole Hearing

2

Board dismissal of Pasadena Superior Court Case No. GA043414. Plaintiff contends that he is

3

entitled to such order based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 70 and Marquez v. Guiterrez, 51

4

F.Supp.2d 1020 (E.D. Cal. 1999). As determined by the Magistrate Judge, Federal Rule of Civil

5

Procedure 70 does not apply to his request. Rule 70 only applies when a party refuses comply with a

6

judgment entered by this Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 70.

7

Additionally, Marquez v. Guiterrez is inapplicable in this action. In Marquez, the court

8

determined that a prisoner’s section 1983 claim of excessive force would not necessarily imply the

9

invalidity of his disciplinary conviction and was not barred by the doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey, 512

10

U.S. 477 (1994). Marquez, 51 F.Supp.2d at 1025. Here, however, Plaintiff claims that he has been

11

falsely imprisoned and seeks an order enforcing dismissal of a state court case. The Magistrate Judge

12

properly determined that Plaintiff essentially requests that the Court order his release from prison and

13

that Plaintiff’s section 1983 action cannot be used to challenge his conviction or sentence. Wilkinson

14

v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78, 125 S.Ct. 1242 (2005).

15

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de

16

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections,

17

the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

18

analysis.

19

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

1.

The findings and recommendations issued on August 2, 2013, are adopted in full;

21

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for an order enforcing administrative judgment, filed on September

22

4, 2012, is DENIED; and
Plaintiff’s motion for an order enforcing administrative judgment, filed on December 3,

23

3.

24

2012, is DENIED.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
2

1
2

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

August 27, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

3
b9ed48bb
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
3