Hamilton v. Unknown

Filing 44

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief 11 , 27 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/10/14. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

GEORGE HAMILTON,

Case No. 1:13-cv-01462-AWI-MJS (PC)

11
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

14
15
16

UNKNOWN,

(ECF Nos. 11, 27)
Defendant.

17
18

This action was opened in the United States District Court for the Northern District of

19

California on July 18, 2013 based upon Plaintiff’s letter to the Honorable Thelton E.

20

Henderson. Therein Plaintiff, an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”), alleged

21

prison staff participated in a "pattern of racketeering activity," which led to an "extremely

22

dangerous and stressful prison environment." On September 10, 2013, the case was

23

ordered transferred to this Court and thereupon referred to a United States Magistrate

24

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District

25

Court for the Eastern District of California.

26

On November 12, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations

27

that Plaintiff’s motion for injunction be denied without prejudice. On December 9, 2013,

28

Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
1

1

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

2

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court

3

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

4

analysis.

5

The objections re-hash arguments in Plaintiff’s motion, that the “CDCR enterprise”

6

structured a scheme of racial segregation and classification in furtherance of racketeering

7

activity which caused race riots. These arguments were previously considered and found

8

deficient by the Magistrate Judge in the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff also

9

concludes this Court lacks jurisdiction and is not a proper venue; the Magistrate Judge did

10

not afford liberal construction due a pro se plaintiff; and Plaintiff is likely to succeed on

11

RICO civil claims against the CDCR enterprise.

12

These re-arguments and arguments do not raise an issue of law or fact under the

13

findings and recommendations. The case law cited in the objections relates to constitutional

14

claims and jurisdictional issues unrelated to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and

15

determinations. It remains that Plaintiff has not named any defendants; may not sue the

16

CDCR; has no cognizable claim before the Court; and has not asserted facts suggesting he

17

is under threat of irreparable injury or that relative hardships tip in his favor. Plaintiff’s

18

objections lack merit.

19

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

1.

2013 (ECF No. 27) in full, and

21
22
23

The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on November 12,

2.

The motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 11) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDUCE.

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 10, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2

1
2
3
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