(PC) Knapp v. Madera County Department of Corrections, et al., No. 1:2018cv00811 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and ORDER DENYING 8 Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief for Lack of Jurisdiction signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/3/2018. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ARTHUR DEAN KNAPP, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 13 v. MADERA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et. al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00811-LJO-SKO (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION (Docs. 8, 12) Defendants. 14 15 16 Plaintiff, Arthur Dean Knapp, is a pretrial detainee at the Madera County Department of 17 Corrections proceeding pro se in this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a 18 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On 19 October 10, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendation which was served 20 on Plaintiff and allowed objections to the Findings and Recommendations to be filed within 21 twenty-one days. 22 Plaintiff’s objections do not raise legal authority to surpass the legal jurisdictional bar 23 accurately identified in the Findings and Recommendations. As stated therein, the Court’s 24 jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the cognizable legal claims upon which it 25 proceeds. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United 26 States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff’s motion must be denied for lack of 27 jurisdiction since it is based on acts by persons who are not parties to this action. 28 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 1 1 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 2 Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 3 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. 5 6 The Findings and Recommendations, filed on October 10, 2018 (Doc. 12), is adopted in full; and 2. Plaintiff’s motion, filed on July 20, 2018 (Doc. 8) requesting access to “pro per 7 phone lines” and the same legal items “provided to criminal pro pers,” is denied 8 for lack of jurisdiction. 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ December 3, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2