Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01758/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01758-11/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

LEE EDWARD PEYTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAT L. VASQUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01758-OWW-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION, WITH

PREJUDICE

(Doc. 31)

Plaintiff Lee Edward Peyton (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 21, 2007, the Court

adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations filed on January 26, 2007, and

denied plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief. (Docs. 19.) On March 27, 2007, plaintiff

filed untimely objections, which were stricken from the record on April 10, 2007. (Docs. 20, 21.)

On May 8, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court review his untimely objections.

(Doc. 31.) The Court construes plaintiff’s motion as one seeking review of his objections and

reconsideration of the Court’s order denying his motions for preliminary injunctive relief. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b)(6); Local Rule 78-230(k).

Plaintiff’s complaint was screened by the Magistrate Judge on May 16, 2007, and found to

set forth cognizable claims for relief against defendants Kuykendall, Wilson, Garcia, Kirby, Elias,

and Holbuin for use of excessive physical force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 32.)

However, plaintiff’s complaint does not state any other claims for relief and plaintiff is currently 

///

Case 1:06-cv-01758-OWW -GSA Document 36 Filed 08/15/07 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

under a thirty-day deadline to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness

to proceed only on his cognizable excessive force claims. (Docs. 32, 34.) 

Plaintiff is housed at High Desert State Prison, and plaintiff’s cognizable excessive force

claims accrued on April 4, 2004 at a different prison. Plaintiff’s claims which were found not to be

cognizable were also based on past events which allegedly occurred at prisons other than High

Desert. Plaintiff is not entitled to any equitable relief in this action concerning his current conditions

of confinement, as plaintiff’s claims arise from past conduct for which there is an adequate remedy

at law, and plaintiff is no longer housed at the prisons where his claims accrued. City of Los Angeles

v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 S.Ct. 1660 (1983); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir.

2006); 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). 

Plaintiff’s motions for preliminaryinjunctive reliefwere properlydenied on March 21, 2007,

and plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motions is HEREBY DENIED, with

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01758-OWW -GSA Document 36 Filed 08/15/07 Page 2 of 2