January 14, 2014
DAVID ESTRADA, Plaintiff,
GIPSON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Document 46)
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.
Plaintiff David Estrada ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma Pauperis in this this civil action. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on August 7, 2013. This action is proceeding against (1) Defendants Gipson and Espinosa for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; and (2) Defendants Gipson, Espinosa, Lambert and Cavazos for violation of the Eighth Amendment. On November 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Injunctive Relief. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On December 4, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that Plaintiff's motion be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections on December 26, 2013.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff's objections, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Plaintiff's objections do not warrant departure from the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations. The Magistrate Judge explained that Plaintiff cannot remedy a wide variety of unrelated alleged wrongs involving numerous staff members, many of whom are not parties to this action. Plaintiff's objections continue to raise numerous issues, including housing assignments, improper custody designations, allegedly false reports, denial of due process and improper medical treatment. Plaintiff continues to believe that staff is purposely taking actions to place his life, and that of his family, in imminent danger.
The Court has explained to Plaintiff numerous times that injunctive relief cannot be used to remedy alleged violations for incidents that are not at issue in this action.
Moreover, although Plaintiff believes that he is being housed around documented enemies and is not being afforded due process, the exhibit he cites demonstrates that Plaintiff's concerns were investigated and found to be untrue. The related report also indicates that Plaintiff told staff that he had enemies that no one knew about yet, and he refused to further elaborate. Plaintiff received a hearing on the related Rules Violation Report, with proper notice, an opportunity to call witnesses and the benefit of a staff assistant.
The Court notes that at the time the Findings and Recommendations were issued, no Defendant had appeared in the action and the Magistrate Judge based his decision, in part, on the Court's absence of personal jurisdiction. Defendants Gipson, Espinosa and Lambert have recently filed an extension of time to file a response, though their appearance does not alter the other deficiencies in Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed December 4, 2013, are ADOPTED in full;
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order (Document 39) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.