Tinsley v. Fox et al.
Filing
20
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/4/17: The findings and recommendations 13 are adopted in full. Plaintiff's requests for immediate court intervention 4 and 9 , are denied. Plaintiff shall, within thirty days after the filing date of this order, file his proposed First Amended Complaint. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DONALD E. TINSLEY,
12
No. 2:16-cv-1647 TLN AC P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
ORDER
14
ROBERT FOX, Warden, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action under 42
18
U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the urinary drug testing to which he has been subjected. The case was
19
referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule
20
302.
21
On November 7, 2016, Magistrate Judge Allison Claire filed an Order and Findings and
22
Recommendations, wherein she screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
23
and dismissed the complaint with leave to file a First Amended Complaint. The Magistrate Judge
24
recommended that Plaintiff’s requests for extraordinary preliminary relief be denied. Plaintiff
25
timely filed objections to the Order and Findings and Recommendations, wherein he challenges
26
the substance and accuracy of the Magistrate Judge’s screening order as well as her
27
recommendation that his requested preliminary relief be denied. Plaintiff offers the following
28
compromise, ECF No. 17 at 4:
1
1
[I]f the U.S. District court judge will rightfully dismiss RVRs
[Rules Violation Reports] 2 - 29, and others in process, plaintiff
will comply [with] the next random MRUP [Mandatory Random
Urinalysis Program] test order, after a reset period, plaintiff so
swears.
2
3
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
4
5
Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
6
Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
7
analysis. More specifically, for the reasons set forth by the Magistrate Judge, this Court concludes
8
that extraordinary preliminary relief is unwarranted at this time. Moreover, Plaintiff may, in a
9
First Amended Complaint, accurately identify and clarify the facts he deems essential to his legal
10
claims and, in contrast to his multiple filings to date, present his facts and claims in a single
11
coherent pleading with all pertinent exhibits attached. Plaintiff’s legal claims should reflect
12
application of the legal authority identified and set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s screening
13
order.
14
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
15
1. The findings and recommendations filed November 7, 2016, (ECF No. 13), are adopted
16
in full;
17
2. Plaintiff’s requests for immediate court intervention, ECF Nos. 4 and 9, are denied; and
18
3. Plaintiff shall, within thirty days after the filing date of this order, file his proposed
19
First Amended Complaint.
20
21
22
Dated: January 4, 2017
23
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
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?