Jones v. Arnette, et al.
Filing
79
ORDER ADOPTING 70 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Plaintiff's 62 Motion For Injunctive Relief, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 04/19/2021. Case Referred back to Magistrate Judge. (Maldonado, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JEREMY JONES,
12
No. 16-cv-01212-DAD-GSA (PC)
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
ARNETTE, et al.,
15
16
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF
Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 62, 70, 75)
17
18
Plaintiff Jeremy Jones is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
19
civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act
20
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
21
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
22
On March 4, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,
23
construing plaintiff’s motion to compel as a motion for a preliminary injunction and
24
recommending that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief be denied. (Doc. No. 70.)
25
Plaintiff had requested a court order compelling prison officials at Kern Valley State Prison
26
(“KVSP”) to give him access to boxes of his legal property that are in storage “because he is not
27
allowed more than six cubic feet of property in his cell.” (Id. at 2.) The assigned magistrate
28
judge recommended denying plaintiff’s motion because “the court lacks personal jurisdiction”
1
1
over KVSP officials as they are not currently before the court in this case, which involves
2
“defendants at California State Prison-Los Angeles County in Lancaster, California (CSP-
3
Lancaster) for events occurring when Plaintiff was incarcerated there.” (Id.) Those findings and
4
recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were
5
to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id. at 3.) On April 5, 2021,
6
plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 75.) Therein,
7
plaintiff appears to assert that this case originated at California State Prison Corcoran (“CSP-
8
Corcoran”), which is part of the California Department of Corrections (“CDCR”) as is KVSP.
9
(Id. at 2.) Plaintiff argues that because the two prisons are part of the same CDCR entity, this
10
court has jurisdiction over the KVSP officials, as well as the CSP-Corcoran officials. (Id.)
11
However, even if this action did arise at CSP-Corcoran, as plaintiff contends, the court would still
12
lack jurisdiction over the KVSP officials for the same reasons articulated in the pending findings
13
and recommendations, namely that the KVSP officials have not been named as defendants in this
14
action and are not before the court in this case.
15
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this
16
court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
17
court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
18
analysis.
19
Accordingly,
20
1.
21
The findings and recommendations issued on March 4, 2021 (Doc. No. 70) are
adopted in full;
22
2.
23
/////
24
/////
25
/////
26
/////
27
/////
28
Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 62) is denied; and
/////
2
1
3.
This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings
2
consistent with this order, including resolution of plaintiff’s second motion to
3
compel and response to the court’s order to show cause, which were filed together
4
with plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations on April 5, 2021.
5
(Doc. No. 75.)
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
April 19, 2021
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
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?