Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01279/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01279-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORGE SALAZAR ROBLES, 1:09-cv-01279-AWI-GSA-PC

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

vs. (Doc. 12.)

MANAGEMENT & TRAINING ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

CORPORATION, et al., MOTION FOR REMAND

(Doc. 8.)

Defendants.

_____________________________/

Jorge Salazar Robles (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action, filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 

 On February 9, 2010, Findings and Recommendations were entered, recommending

that Plaintiff's motion for remand be denied. On February 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed objections to the

findings and recommendations. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73-

305, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper

analysis. In the objections, Plaintiff contends that this action contains no causes of action based on

1

Case 1:09-cv-01279-AWI -GBC Document 15 Filed 03/22/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the Federal Constitution; Rather, Plaintiff contends that this action only contains claims based on the

California Constitution. Plaintiff’s complaint and objections are inconsistent. At this time, the

court will not remand the action. However, Plaintiff is given leave to file an amended complaint

that contains only alleged violations of California tort law and the California Constitution, along

with another motion to remand.

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on

February 9, 2010, are ADOPTED in full; 

2. Plaintiff's motion for remand, filed on August 3, 2009, is DENIED without

prejudice; and

3. Plaintiff is given leave to amend the complaint to delete any references to

violations of the Federal Constitution.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01279-AWI -GBC Document 15 Filed 03/22/10 Page 2 of 2