Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00844/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00844-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD A. HOLCOMB,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER GONZALES,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-00844-OWW-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEGAL

SUPPLIES (Doc. 10)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 9)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE

TO EXHAUST PRIOR TO FILING

SUIT (Doc. 1)

Plaintiff Richard A. Holcomb (“plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil

rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 26, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings

and Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the Findings

Case 1:06-cv-00844-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 04/27/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. To date,

plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.

However, on March 22, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion seeking

a court order mandating the issuance of legals supplies. Plaintiff

is not entitled to the issuance of a preliminary injunction aimed

at enabling him to litigate this action for efficiently or

effectively. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103

S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams.

United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471,

102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444

F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)

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 by proper analysis. Plaintiff failed to exhaust in

compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and is not entitled to

proceed with this action. Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19

(2007). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for legal supplies, filed March 22,

2007, is DENIED; 

2. The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 26,

2007, is ADOPTED IN FULL; and

///

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-00844-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 04/27/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

3. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on

plaintiff’s failure to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)

by exhausting his claims prior to filing suit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00844-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 04/27/07 Page 3 of 3