Estrada v. Tassey et al

Filing 76

ORDER ADOPTING 66 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER STRIKING 62 Motion for Sanctions, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 03/25/14. (Martin-Gill, 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
STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS
(Document 66)

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 January 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Sanctions, which the Court interpreted

23

as a Motion for Injunctive Relief. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
24
25
26
27

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On February 14, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that
Plaintiff’s motion be stricken. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and

28
1

1
2
3
4

contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections
on March 21, 2014.
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

5

objections, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record
6
7
8
9

and by proper analysis.
In his objections, Plaintiff states that he wants the Court’s order sealing the complaint to
be respected “by all of those [he] must come across.” Obj. 2. Plaintiff’s failure to abide by the

10

Court’s prohibition against further motions attempting to remedy issues over which the Court

11

does not have jurisdiction was addressed thoroughly by the Findings and Recommendations, and

12

his objections only underscore the Court’s findings.

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1.

15

16

The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 14, 2014, are ADOPTED in
full;

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Document 62) is STRICKEN.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

March 25, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2