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)

Download PDF
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?