(PC) Bell v. Duffy, et al., No. 2:2014cv00965 - Document 59 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 9/4/2015 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 55 are ADOPTED in FULL; Plaintiff's 44 motion to file a fourth amended complaint is DENIED with respect to his request to add his previously dismissed claims challenging the allegedly erroneous restitution order; Plaintiff's motion to file a fourth amended complaint alleging erroneous entries in his criminal record is denied for the reasons discussed in this order. (Reader, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANNY BELL, 12 No. 2:14-cv-0965 GEB KJN P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 A. PAYAN, et al., 15 ORDER Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 24, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff’s motion to file a fourth amended 25 complaint raising his previously dismissed claim challenging the allegedly erroneous restitution 26 order be denied pursuant to the law of the case doctrine. 27 28 In his objections, plaintiff alleges that his fourth amended complaint also raised a claim alleging that his criminal record contained erroneous entries. To the extent plaintiff alleges that 1 1 these entries concerned the allegedly improper restitution order, this claim is dismissed for the 2 reasons stated by the magistrate judge in the findings and recommendations. 3 It is not clear that plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint raises a claim alleging erroneous 4 entries in his criminal record unrelated to the allegedly erroneous restitution order. In any event, 5 such a claim is not made against the operative defendants, Duffy and Payan. In addition, a claim 6 alleging erroneous entries in plaintiff’s criminal record is unrelated to the claim on which this 7 action is proceeding, i.e., that defendants Duffy and Payan improperly calculated plaintiff’s filing 8 fees. Plaintiff may not bring unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a single action. Fed. R. 9 Civ. P. 18(s), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); George v. Smith, 10 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). For this reason, plaintiff’s request to raise a claim alleging 11 erroneous entries in his criminal record is denied. 12 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 13 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 14 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 15 analysis. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 24, 2015, are adopted in full; and 18 2. Plaintiff’s motion to file a fourth amended complaint (ECF No. 44) is denied with 19 respect to his request to add his previously dismissed claims challenging the allegedly erroneous 20 restitution order; 21 3. Plaintiff’s motion to file a fourth amended complaint alleging erroneous entries in his 22 criminal record is denied for the reasons discussed above. 23 Dated: September 4, 2015 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.
