(PC) Beckett v. Scalia, et al., No. 1:2020cv01468 - Document 38 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 27 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 23 Motion for Return of Property, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/22/2023.(Maldonado, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW H. BECKETT, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 SCALIA, et al., 15 Defendants. No. 1:20-cv-01468-JLT-CDB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY (Docs. 23, 27) 16 17 Matthew H. Beckett is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 The Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations, which concluded that the 21 Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion for a return of property. (Doc. 27.) Because of the relief 22 sought, the assigned Magistrate Judge construed the pleading as a motion for a preliminary 23 injunction. (Id. at 1.) 24 Plaintiff objects and states that he is seeking production of evidence and has made 25 multiple attempts to obtain unspecified documents from the warden, the AG’s office, and the 26 court. (Doc. 28 at 1.) Plaintiff attaches to his objections numerous documents that appear to be 27 filings in another case pending in this District in which he is the named plaintiff. Notably, 28 Plaintiff does not dispute the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the type of injunctive relief 1 Plaintiff requests (return of property) is different from the relief he seeks ultimately to be granted 2 in this action. Nor does Plaintiff challenge that the Court lacks authority to grant Plaintiff his 3 requested remedy absent a nexus between that remedy and the conduct asserted in the complaint. 4 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this 5 case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court 6 concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 7 analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 8 9 10 1, The findings and recommendations issued on October 2, 2023, (Doc. 27), are ADOPTED IN FULL. 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, (Doc. 23), is DENIED. 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 22, 2023 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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.