(PC) Crane v. Rodriguez, et al, No. 2:2015cv00208 - Document 37 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 12/4/15 ORDERING that the 10/29/2015 Order 27 is VACATED. The findings and recommendations filed 9/22/2015 22 are adopted in full. Plaintiff's 21 request for injunctive relief is DENIED. (Kastilahn, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Crane v. Rodriguez, et al Doc. 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD JOSEPH CRANE, 12 13 14 No. 2:15-cv-0208 TLN KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER RODRIGUEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. The instant action proceeds on Plaintiff’s 20 allegations that Defendants retaliated against him for exercising his right to access the courts and 21 practice his religion, and failed to protect Plaintiff, based on incidents that occurred at High 22 Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) between February 12, 2009, and March 8, 2013. At the time 23 Plaintiff filed his motion for injunctive relief, he was housed at R.J. Donovan Correctional 24 Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, but is now housed at the California State Prison in Lancaster 25 (“LAC”). 26 On September 22, 2015, the magistrate judge recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for 27 injunctive relief be denied in findings and recommendations which were served on Plaintiff and 28 which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 to be filed within thirty days. (ECF No. 22.) On October 29, 2015, the undersigned adopted the 2 findings and recommendations as no objections were timely filed. (ECF No. 27.) 3 The next day, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file objections, which was 4 entered on the court’s docket on November 2, 2015, but signed by Plaintiff on October 20, 2015. 5 (ECF No. 28.) On November 10, 2015, Plaintiff’s request for extension was granted because the 6 request for extension was timely filed under the mailbox rule. (ECF No. 33 at 1.) On November 7 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 36.) 8 9 10 Therefore, the October 29, 2015 Order (ECF No. 27) adopting the findings and recommendations is vacated, and the Court will conduct a de novo review. In his two page objections, Plaintiff states that without injunctive relief, agents of the 11 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation will not cease retaliating against him 12 because of this litigation. (ECF No. 36 at 1.) Plaintiff adds that “since the level of retaliatory 13 actions has risen to criminal actions such as attempted murder, and assault with serious bodily 14 injury, injunctive relief is [needed] just to preserve [the] status quo.” (ECF No. 36 at 1.) 15 However, Plaintiff provides no factual support for the statements contained in his 16 objections. Plaintiff does not indicate where such “criminal actions” occurred, and does not 17 identify the alleged “attempted murder and assault with serious bodily injury” to which he refers. 18 His request for injunctive relief based on incidents at RJD did not include such allegations. Thus, 19 it is unclear whether Plaintiff is referring to incidents that occurred at RJD or LAC. 20 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 21 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 22 Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 23 analysis. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. The October 29, 2015 Order (ECF No. 27) is vacated; 26 2. The findings and recommendations filed September 22, 2015 (ECF No. 22), are 27 28 adopted in full; and 3. Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief (ECF No. 21) is denied. 2 1 Dated: December 4, 2015 2 3 4 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
