(PC) Beaton v. Valley State Prison, No. 1:2020cv00005 - Document 31 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 24 Findings and Recommendations to DENY Plaintiff's 21 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/4/2020. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL NIVARD BEATON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al., Defendants. No. 1:20-cv-0005 NONE JLT (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Doc. Nos. 21, 24) 16 17 Plaintiff Paul Nivard Beaton, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this civil rights 18 action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendant Sergeant D. Miller, 19 an official at Valley State Prison (“VSP”), retaliated against plaintiff for threatening to exercise 20 his First Amendment right by filing an inmate grievance against Valenzuela-Quezada, a nurse at 21 the California Department of Correction. (Doc. No. 20 at 2–4.) In April 2020, plaintiff filed a 22 motion requesting that the court to restrain “them” from transferring him to another prison in 23 retaliation of his exercising his First Amendment rights—though, it is unclear to the court who 24 plaintiff is referring to in referencing “them.” (Doc. No. 21 at 1–3.) This matter was referred to a 25 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 26 Before the court proceed further, a pleading error in plaintiff’s second amended complaint 27 (“SAC”) must be addressed. In his first amended complaint (“FAC”), plaintiff asserted claims for 28 violation of his right to free speech against a single defendant, Sergeant D. Miller, a prison 1 1 official at VSP. (Doc. No. 10 at 1–5.) After reviewing the FAC and finding the allegations 2 therein to be insufficiently pled, the court granted plaintiff’s leave to amend his free speech 3 claims against Sergeant Miller only. (See Doc. No. 15.) Nevertheless, in his recently filed SAC, 4 plaintiff asserts his free speech claims against additional parties, nurse Valenzuela-Quezada and 5 Dr. Shwe Tin-Aung. (Doc. No. 20 ¶¶ III.B, D.) This is improper. “When the language of an 6 order clearly states that a plaintiff may only amend to address certain deficiencies identified in the 7 order, courts have held that a plaintiff is barred from adding new claims or parties.” Jameson 8 Beach Prop. Owners Ass’n v. United States, No. 2:13-CV-01025-MCE-AC, 2014 WL 4925253, 9 at *4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2014). Because plaintiff has exceeded the scope of the leave to amend 10 authorized in the court order allowing him to cure only the pleading deficiencies with respect to 11 his claim against Sergeant Miller (see Doc. No. 15 at 1–3), allegations against the newly added 12 defendants in the SAC will be stricken. See, e.g., Benton v. Baker Hughes, No. CV 12-07735 13 MMM MRWX, 2013 WL 3353636, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2013), aff’d sub nom. Benton v. 14 Hughes, 623 F. App’x 888 (9th Cir. 2015) (striking “newly added claims” because the plaintiff 15 exceeded the “leave to amend only to address the deficiencies in his existing causes of action 16 identified in [the] order”). Plaintiff must seek leave of court to add additional parties or claims. 17 The court now turns to the pending findings and recommendations, recommending that 18 plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be denied. (Doc. No. 24.) Plaintiff has filed objections 19 thereto. (Doc. No. 28.) The court has conducted a de novo review of this case in accordance with 20 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and finds the pending findings and recommendations to be supported by 21 the record and proper analysis. Plaintiff’s objections fail to address how he has met his burden of 22 establishing his entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief either in the form of a TRO or a 23 preliminary injunction. See Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 577 F.3d 1015, 1021 (9th Cir. 2009) 24 (citing Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). 25 Accordingly, the court hereby orders as follows: 26 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 1, 2020 (Doc. No. 24) are 27 28 ADOPTED; ///// 2 1 2 3 2. Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 21) is DENIED; and 3. Plaintiff’s unauthorized allegations against newly added defendants, nurse Valenzuela- 4 Quezada and Dr. Shwe Tin-Aung, set forth in his second amended complaint are 5 STRICKEN. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 4, 2020 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.
