Estrada v. Tassey et al

Filing 61

ORDER Adopting 46 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DENYING Plaintiff's 39 Motion for Injunctive Relief signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/14/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

DAVID ESTRADA,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
GIPSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13cv00919 LJO DLB PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Document 46)

16
17

Plaintiff David Estrada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

Pauperis in this this civil action. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on August 7, 2013.

19

This action is proceeding against (1) Defendants Gipson and Espinosa for retaliation in violation

20
21
22

of the First Amendment; and (2) Defendants Gipson, Espinosa, Lambert and Cavazos for
violation of the Eighth Amendment. On November 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Injunctive Relief. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

23

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
24
25
26
27
28

On December 4, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that
Plaintiff’s motion be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and
contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections
on December 26, 2013.
1

1
2
3
4
5

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
objections, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record
and by proper analysis.
Plaintiff’s objections do not warrant departure from the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

6
7
8
9

Recommendations. The Magistrate Judge explained that Plaintiff cannot remedy a wide variety
of unrelated alleged wrongs involving numerous staff members, many of whom are not parties to
this action. Plaintiff’s objections continue to raise numerous issues, including housing

10

assignments, improper custody designations, allegedly false reports, denial of due process and

11

improper medical treatment. Plaintiff continues to believe that staff is purposely taking actions

12

to place his life, and that of his family, in imminent danger.

13
14
15

16
17
18

The Court has explained to Plaintiff numerous times that injunctive relief cannot be used
to remedy alleged violations for incidents that are not at issue in this action.
Moreover, although Plaintiff believes that he is being housed around documented
enemies and is not being afforded due process, the exhibit he cites demonstrates that Plaintiff’s
concerns were investigated and found to be untrue. The related report also indicates that Plaintiff
told staff that he had enemies that no one knew about yet, and he refused to further elaborate.

19

Plaintiff received a hearing on the related Rules Violation Report, with proper notice, an
20
21
22
23

opportunity to call witnesses and the benefit of a staff assistant.
The Court notes that at the time the Findings and Recommendations were issued, no
Defendant had appeared in the action and the Magistrate Judge based his decision, in part, on the

24

Court’s absence of personal jurisdiction. Defendants Gipson, Espinosa and Lambert have

25

recently filed an extension of time to file a response, though their appearance does not alter the

26

other deficiencies in Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief.

27
28
2

1
2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

3
4

The Findings and Recommendations, filed December 4, 2013, are ADOPTED in
full;

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order (Document 39) is DENIED.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated:
8

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

January 14, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3