Myers v. Pulido et al

Filing 60

ORDER ADOPTING 57 Findings and Recommendations, Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/18/17. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 DALLAS JOSHUA JAMES MYERS, 10 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. L. PULIDO, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:16-cv-00638-AWI-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (ECF Nos. 52, 56, 57) 15 16 Plaintiff Dallas J. Myers is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 17 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 14, 2017, the parties stipulated to a voluntary 18 dismissal of this action, and thus this matter was terminated and dismissed with prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. 19 P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). (ECF Nos. 48, 49.) 20 On June 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order requiring prison officials at Mule 21 Creek State Prison to give him back his legal property. (ECF No. 52.) Plaintiff contended that when he 22 was returned to that institution from court, he was told it could take up to 30 days for him to receive all 23 of his property. Plaintiff sought an order directing that he receive all of his property immediately. On 24 July 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that his property had not yet been returned. (ECF No. 56.) 25 On July 13, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued an order construing Plaintiff’s request 26 as a motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief, and recommending the motion be denied. The 27 magistrate judge found that Plaintiff had shown no immediate need or impending harm from the 28 normal return of his property, and thus no basis for the Court to interfere with the correctional 1 1 institution’s administration of the delivery of Plaintiff’s property in this closed case. (ECF No. 57.) 2 Plaintiff was given fourteen days to file objections. More than fourteen days have passed, and no 3 objections were filed. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the Court 5 has conducted a de novo review of Plaintiff’s case. The Court finds the findings and recommendations 6 to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. 9 full; and, 10 2. 11 The findings and recommendations filed on July 13, 2017 (ECF No. 57) are adopted in Plaintiff’s motion seeking an order requiring prison officials at Mule Creek State Prison to give him back his legal property (ECF No. 52) is DENIED. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: September 18, 2017 15 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?