Kabede v. Brown et al

Filing 17

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 7/10/17 ORDERING that plaintiffs request for assistance with any deportation proceedings is denied. Also, RECOMMENDING that plaintiffs motion to voluntarily dismiss this case 16 be granted. MOTION 16 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WONDIYRAD KABEDE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.

No. 2:16-cv-1765 JAM DB P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

GARY BROWN, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

18

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, plaintiff appears to allege various claims

19

regarding his medical care at Mule Creek State Prison, the handling of his mail, and harassment.

20

However, the relief plaintiff sought is only appropriate medical treatment and an investigation

21

into past medical treatment. (ECF No. 1.) In a screening order dated February 22, 2017, the

22

court found plaintiff did not state cognizable claims for relief under § 1983 and gave plaintiff the

23

opportunity to amend his complaint. (ECF No. 9.) When plaintiff did not file an amended

24

complaint, the court, in an order filed May 31, 2017, gave plaintiff one final thirty-day

25

opportunity to do so. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.

26

In a document filed June 15, 2017, plaintiff states that he has been transferred to the

27

California Health Care Facility, has received “complete medical care,” and is “feeling much

28

better than I was.” Plaintiff then asks the court to “disregard the medical complaint against Mule
1

1

Creek staff in this case.” He also asks the court to order the governor to “re-review my request to

2

be deported before this case is closed.” (ECF No. 16.)
The court construes plaintiff’s filing as a motion to voluntarily dismiss this case. See Fed.

3
4

R. Civ. P. 41(a). Plaintiff is advised that this court has no authority in this § 1983 action to make

5

any orders respecting any deportation proceedings. The purpose of a § 1983 action is to

6

challenge the conditions of confinement. See McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42

7

(1991). Therefore, plaintiff’s request for this court’s assistance with regard to deportation will be

8

denied.

9
10
11
12
13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for assistance with any
deportation proceedings is denied; and
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss this case
be granted.
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

14

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

15

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

16

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings

17

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

18

time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

19

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

20

Dated: July 10, 2017

21
22
23
24
25

DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/kabe1765.fr

26
27
28
2