(PC) Salas v. Allison et al

Filing 68

ORDER ADOPTING 42 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Ana de Alba on 9/15/2022. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAFAEL SALAS, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, No. 1:21-cv-00669-DAD-EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (Doc. Nos. 36, 42) C. PFEIFFER, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 Rafael Salas (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. 19 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 20 and Local Rule 302. 21 On December 20, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of 22 Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). (Doc. No. 36.) On March 24, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge 23 entered findings and recommendations, recommending that: 24 25 26 27 1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) be granted in part and denied in part; 2. Defendants’ request to dismiss Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief be denied; and 3. Plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief be dismissed. (Doc. No. 42, pgs. 7-8.) 28 1 1 The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and 2 recommendations. Plaintiff filed his objections on April 11, 2022. (Doc. No. 44.) Defendants 3 did not file objections, but on April 20, 2022, they filed a reply to plaintiff’s objections (Doc. No. 4 46.). 5 In his objections, Plaintiff argues that his claim for declaratory relief should not be 6 dismissed because “declaratory relief will provide guideposts to defendants’ policy, procedures, 7 conduct and customs in processing and affirmatively effectuating the marriage process.” (Doc. 8 No. 44, p. 2). In reply, Defendant argues that this would render the opinion an advisory opinion. 9 (Doc. 46, p. 2). Both arguments are unpersuasive to alter the Findings and Recommendations of 10 the Magistrate Judge. As stated in the Findings and Recommendations, “‘[d]eclaratory relief 11 should be denied where it will neither serve a useful purpose in clarifying and settling the legal 12 relations in issue nor terminate the proceedings and afford relief from uncertainty and controversy 13 faced by the parties.’” (Doc. 42, p. 7, quoting United States v. State of Washington, 759 F.2d 14 1353, 1357 (9th Cir. 1985). Here, because the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s findings 15 and recommendations to deny Defendants’ request to dismiss Plaintiff’s request for injunctive 16 relief, this action has the potential to reach trial and return a verdict in favor of Plaintiff that will 17 resolve the controversy at issue. (Id.). Therefore, a declaration that any defendant violated 18 Plaintiff’s rights in unnecessary. 19 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 20 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the plaintiff’s 21 objections and defendants’ reply, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and 22 recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 23 Accordingly, 24 1. 25 26 adopted in full; 2. 27 28 The findings and recommendations issued on March 24, 2022, (Doc. No. 42), are Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), (Doc. No. 36), is granted in part and denied in part; 3. Defendants’ request to dismiss plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is 2 1 2 denied; and 4. Plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief is dismissed. 3 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 15, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 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?