(PC) Jones v. Arnette, et al., No. 1:2016cv01212 - Document 79 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 70 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Plaintiff's 62 Motion For Injunctive Relief, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 04/19/2021. Case Referred back to Magistrate Judge. (Maldonado, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMY JONES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ARNETTE, et al., 15 16 No. 16-cv-01212-DAD-GSA (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 62, 70, 75) 17 18 Plaintiff Jeremy Jones is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 19 civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act 20 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On March 4, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 23 construing plaintiff’s motion to compel as a motion for a preliminary injunction and 24 recommending that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief be denied. (Doc. No. 70.) 25 Plaintiff had requested a court order compelling prison officials at Kern Valley State Prison 26 (“KVSP”) to give him access to boxes of his legal property that are in storage “because he is not 27 allowed more than six cubic feet of property in his cell.” (Id. at 2.) The assigned magistrate 28 judge recommended denying plaintiff’s motion because “the court lacks personal jurisdiction” 1 1 over KVSP officials as they are not currently before the court in this case, which involves 2 “defendants at California State Prison-Los Angeles County in Lancaster, California (CSP- 3 Lancaster) for events occurring when Plaintiff was incarcerated there.” (Id.) Those findings and 4 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 5 to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id. at 3.) On April 5, 2021, 6 plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 75.) Therein, 7 plaintiff appears to assert that this case originated at California State Prison Corcoran (“CSP- 8 Corcoran”), which is part of the California Department of Corrections (“CDCR”) as is KVSP. 9 (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff argues that because the two prisons are part of the same CDCR entity, this 10 court has jurisdiction over the KVSP officials, as well as the CSP-Corcoran officials. (Id.) 11 However, even if this action did arise at CSP-Corcoran, as plaintiff contends, the court would still 12 lack jurisdiction over the KVSP officials for the same reasons articulated in the pending findings 13 and recommendations, namely that the KVSP officials have not been named as defendants in this 14 action and are not before the court in this case. 15 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 16 court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 17 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 18 analysis. 19 Accordingly, 20 1. 21 The findings and recommendations issued on March 4, 2021 (Doc. No. 70) are adopted in full; 22 2. 23 ///// 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 62) is denied; and 2 1 3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings 2 consistent with this order, including resolution of plaintiff’s second motion to 3 compel and response to the court’s order to show cause, which were filed together 4 with plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations on April 5, 2021. 5 (Doc. No. 75.) 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 19, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.