Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00529/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00529-34/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ETUATE SEKONA,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. FRANCIS,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00529-KES-HBK

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER.

Doc. 116

Plaintiff Etuate Sekona is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in the

instant action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant 

Francis, an employee of Kern Valley State Prison, alleging Defendant’s deliberate indifference to 

serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The matter was referred to a United 

States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On October 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). 

Doc. 114. On October 30, 2023, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to 

deny Plaintiff’s motion. Doc. 116. Plaintiff timely filed objections. Doc. 117.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the objections, the 

Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 

analysis. Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO essentially opposed the Court’s continuance of his trial 

Case 1:19-cv-00529-KES-HBK Document 122 Filed 04/01/24 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

2

date from October 31, 2023, to March 26, 2024, arguing that the continuance violated his Sixth 

and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Doc. 114. Plaintiff’s motion also requested that the Court 

order two witnesses to provide updated addresses. Id. at 2.

Plaintiff’s objections largely restate the allegations made in his motion and do not 

undermine the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. See Docs. 114, 117. The Sixth 

Amendment right to a speedy trial applies to criminal defendants, not to Plaintiff’s civil action. 

“[T]he Sixth Amendment does not govern civil cases.” Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431, 441 

(2011). To the extent Plaintiff asserts a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim, the 

Court’s reasonable continuance of his civil trial due to its impacted docket did not implicate any 

such right. See Los Angeles Cnty. Bar Ass’n v. Eu, 979 F.2d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1992) (finding no 

basis in Constitution for rigid right to resolution of civil claims within specific time frame). The 

findings and recommendations accurately described the Court’s need to manage its impacted 

docket. Since the issuance of the findings and recommendation, the March 26, 2024, trial date 

was vacated due to the elevation of the prior district judge. The previously vacated Pretrial 

Conference and Jury Trial dates will now be reset in this case.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The findings and recommendations filed on October 30, 2023 (Doc. 116) are

ADOPTED in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 114) is DENIED;

3. The matter is returned to the magistrate judge for further proceedings, including the 

setting of Pretrial Conference and Jury Trial dates in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00529-KES-HBK Document 122 Filed 04/01/24 Page 2 of 2