(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)

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