Bell v. Duffy, et al.
Filing
59
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 9/4/2015 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 55 are ADOPTED in FULL; Plaintiff's 44 motion to file a fourth amended complaint is DENIED with respect to his request to add his previously dismissed claims challenging the allegedly erroneous restitution order; Plaintiff's motion to file a fourth amended complaint alleging erroneous entries in his criminal record is denied for the reasons discussed in this order. (Reader, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DANNY BELL,
12
No. 2:14-cv-0965 GEB KJN P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
A. PAYAN, et al.,
15
ORDER
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
18
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
19
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
On July 24, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which
21
were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the
22
findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed
23
objections to the findings and recommendations.
24
The magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff’s motion to file a fourth amended
25
complaint raising his previously dismissed claim challenging the allegedly erroneous restitution
26
order be denied pursuant to the law of the case doctrine.
27
28
In his objections, plaintiff alleges that his fourth amended complaint also raised a claim
alleging that his criminal record contained erroneous entries. To the extent plaintiff alleges that
1
1
these entries concerned the allegedly improper restitution order, this claim is dismissed for the
2
reasons stated by the magistrate judge in the findings and recommendations.
3
It is not clear that plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint raises a claim alleging erroneous
4
entries in his criminal record unrelated to the allegedly erroneous restitution order. In any event,
5
such a claim is not made against the operative defendants, Duffy and Payan. In addition, a claim
6
alleging erroneous entries in plaintiff’s criminal record is unrelated to the claim on which this
7
action is proceeding, i.e., that defendants Duffy and Payan improperly calculated plaintiff’s filing
8
fees. Plaintiff may not bring unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a single action. Fed. R.
9
Civ. P. 18(s), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); George v. Smith,
10
507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). For this reason, plaintiff’s request to raise a claim alleging
11
erroneous entries in his criminal record is denied.
12
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
13
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
14
court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
15
analysis.
16
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
17
1. The findings and recommendations filed July 24, 2015, are adopted in full; and
18
2. Plaintiff’s motion to file a fourth amended complaint (ECF No. 44) is denied with
19
respect to his request to add his previously dismissed claims challenging the allegedly erroneous
20
restitution order;
21
3. Plaintiff’s motion to file a fourth amended complaint alleging erroneous entries in his
22
criminal record is denied for the reasons discussed above.
23
Dated: September 4, 2015
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?