Kabede v. Brown et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:16-cv-1765 JAM DB P
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
GARY BROWN, et al.,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, plaintiff appears to allege various claims
regarding his medical care at Mule Creek State Prison, the handling of his mail, and harassment.
However, the relief plaintiff sought is only appropriate medical treatment and an investigation
into past medical treatment. (ECF No. 1.) In a screening order dated February 22, 2017, the
court found plaintiff did not state cognizable claims for relief under § 1983 and gave plaintiff the
opportunity to amend his complaint. (ECF No. 9.) When plaintiff did not file an amended
complaint, the court, in an order filed May 31, 2017, gave plaintiff one final thirty-day
opportunity to do so. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.
In a document filed June 15, 2017, plaintiff states that he has been transferred to the
California Health Care Facility, has received “complete medical care,” and is “feeling much
better than I was.” Plaintiff then asks the court to “disregard the medical complaint against Mule
Creek staff in this case.” He also asks the court to order the governor to “re-review my request to
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.
R. Civ. P. 41(a). Plaintiff is advised that this court has no authority in this § 1983 action to make
any orders respecting any deportation proceedings. The purpose of a § 1983 action is to
challenge the conditions of confinement. See McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42
(1991). Therefore, plaintiff’s request for this court’s assistance with regard to deportation will be
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
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings
and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified
time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951
F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Dated: July 10, 2017
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?