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