(PC) Mario Amador Gonzalez v. Warden Soto et al, No. 1:2016cv01675 - Document 127 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 100 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; granting 108 Motion to Strike and denying 86 Motion for Preliminary Injunction signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/18/2018. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIO AMADOR GONZALEZ, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:16-cv-01675-DAD-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, v. DR. SCHARFFENBERG and R.N. S. SOTO, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 86, 100, 108) 17 18 Plaintiff Mario Gonzalez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 5, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 86.) 22 On March 13, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations, 23 recommending that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction be denied because it was 24 unrelated to his claims and sought relief against non-parties over whom the court does not have 25 jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 100.) 26 Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and 27 recommendations. (Id.) On April 2, 2018, plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. No. 106.) Among 28 other objections, plaintiff accused defense counsel, counsel’s supervisors, and the Office of the 1 1 Attorney General (“OAG”) of orchestrating the alleged denial of medical care to retaliate against 2 plaintiff and discourage other inmates from filing lawsuits. (Id. at 3–4.) On April 6, 2018, 3 defendants filed a motion to strike plaintiff’s objections, on the grounds that they were improper 4 and defamatory. (Doc. No. 108.) 5 On April 9, 2018, the magistrate judge issued an order instructing plaintiff that he had 6 twenty-one days after the date of service of defendants’ motion to strike to file and serve his 7 opposition to the motion. (Doc. No. 110.) That order further directed plaintiff to submit evidence 8 in support of his allegations that defense counsel and his supervisors were intentionally causing 9 him to be denied needed medical care, if he intended to oppose the motion to strike. (Id.) 10 Plaintiff was warned that if he did not file evidence, the motion to strike would be granted. (Id.) 11 On April 24, 2018, plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to strike. (Doc. No. 114.) On April 12 30, 2018, defendants filed their reply. (Doc. No. 115.) 13 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 14 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 15 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 16 Unsurprisingly, plaintiff failed to submit any evidence that defense counsel or his 17 supervisors were involved in the alleged denial of necessary medical care. Rather, plaintiff states 18 only that he “strongly believes” that the OAG is in active concert or participation with 19 defendants, while conceding that defense counsel may not be aware of the alleged retaliation. 20 (Doc. No. 114 at 3.) Accordingly, the court will strike plaintiff’s objections to the March 13, 21 2018findings and recommendations. Moreover, even if the court were to consider plaintiff’s objections, they would provide no 22 23 basis for questioning the magistrate judge’s recommendation that plaintiff’s motion for 24 preliminary injunction should be denied. As the magistrate judge found, plaintiff’s injunction 25 request is aimed at persons who are not defendants in this case, and the incidents described in the 26 injunction request are unrelated to the incidents alleged in this case. (Doc. No. 100 at 4.) 27 ///// 28 ///// 2 1 Accordingly, the court HEREBY ORDERS that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on March 13, 2018 3 (Doc. No. 100) are ADOPTED in full; 4 2. Defendants’ motion to strike (Doc. No. 108) is GRANTED; and 5 3. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 86) is DENIED. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 18, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.