(PC) Steward v. Pfeiffer et al, No. 1:2019cv01022 - Document 27 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 25 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER DISMISSING ACTION; and ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motions 15 , 16 , 17 , 20 , 23 , 24 , 26 signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/14/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONNY STEWARD, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:19-cv-01022-DAD-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, v. CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THIS ACTION, AND CLOSING THIS CASE (Doc. No. 25) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Donny Steward is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 19 civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 In his original complaint, plaintiff asserted claims based on an incident that allegedly took 22 place on May 16, 2019 at what was then his prison of confinement. (Doc. No. 1.) After the 23 assigned magistrate judge screened his original complaint, plaintiff filed a first amended 24 complaint (“FAC”), wherein he asserts additional causes of actions unrelated to the alleged May 25 16, 2019 incident that was the subject of his original complaint and alleges facts that contradict 26 the facts that he alleged in his original complaint. (Compare Doc. No. 1, with Doc. No. 21.) 27 On February 10, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued the pending findings and 28 recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed in its entirety. (Doc. No. 25.) 1 1 Specifically, the magistrate judge recommended that: (1) plaintiff’s federal claims relating to the 2 May 16, 2019 incident be dismissed with prejudice, because “Plaintiff’s own facts establish that 3 the pepper spray, ‘launcher bullets,’ and other force used against Plaintiff during the May 16, 4 2019[] incident was needed to ‘maintain or restore discipline’ and was not used ‘maliciously and 5 sadistically to cause harm;’” (2) plaintiff’s new federal claims asserted in the FAC that are 6 unrelated to the May 16, 2019 incident be dismissed without prejudice; and (3) plaintiff’s state 7 law claims be dismissed without prejudice, as a result of the court declining to exercise 8 supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. (Id. at 10, 25) (quoting Hudson v. McMillian, 503 9 U.S. 1, 6–7 (1992)). The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained 10 notice that objections thereto were due within thirty (30) days of service of the order. (Id. at 19.) 11 On February 24, 2020, plaintiff filed a “MOTION for Hearing on Pending Motions and for a 12 Pretrial Date.” (Doc. No. 26.) Although not clearly labeled as objections to the pending findings 13 and recommendations, the undersigned construes this filing as such. 14 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 15 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 16 including plaintiff’s objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are 17 supported by the record and proper analysis. Plaintiff’s objections do not meaningfully dispute 18 the magistrate judge’s findings that, with respect to the May 16, 2019 incident, the allegations set 19 forth in plaintiff’s FAC contradict the allegations of his original complaint, and that once those 20 contradictory allegations are stricken, the remaining allegations foreclose the claims he is seeking 21 to assert with respect to that incident as a matter of law. Nor does he object to the remaining 22 recommendations, namely that his state law claims and new federal claims should be dismissed 23 without prejudice. Accordingly, the court will adopt the February 10, 2020 findings and 24 recommendations in full. 25 Finally, the court briefly addresses the various other motions plaintiff has filed. These 26 include: (1) a motion to reconsider the undersigned September 18, 2019 order denying his 27 motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”); (2) a motion to “log” medical records in 28 support of that TRO; (3) an amended motion to “log” medical records in support of his motion for 2 1 a TRO; (4) an additional motion seeking reconsideration of the undersigned’s order denying his 2 motion for a TRO; (5) a motion for relief from California Government Code § 954.4; (6) a motion 3 “to log Exhibit A then D as Evidence of Retaliation”; and (7) the already-discussed motion for 4 hearing on these pending motions and for the setting of a pretrial date. (Doc. Nos. 15, 16, 17, 20, 5 23, 24, 26.) Because the undersigned will dismiss this action in its entirety, each of these motions 6 filed by plaintiff has been rendered moot. Accordingly, they will be denied on that basis. 7 For the reasons set forth above, 8 1. The February 10, 2020 findings and recommendations are adopted in full; 9 2. Plaintiff’s federal claims related to the May 16, 2019 incident are dismissed with 10 11 prejudice; 3. 12 Plaintiff’s federal claims that are unrelated to the May 16, 2019 incident are dismissed without prejudice; 13 4. Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice; 14 5. Plaintiff’s various miscellaneous motions (Doc. Nos. 15, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, 26) are 15 16 17 18 19 denied as having been rendered moot by the issuance of this order; and 6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 14, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
