Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00644/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00644-13/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUY T. STRINGHAM,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S- 05-0644 FCD GGH P

vs.

J. BICK, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 General Order No. 262.

On January 8, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Defendants

have filed objections to the findings and recommendations to which plaintiff has filed a response.

In their objections, defendants seek to introduce new and further evidence that

they argue “clarifies” how institutional safety and security would be implicated by plaintiff’s

move to a window-tinted cell and shows that plaintiff’s current housing assignment reasonably

accommodates plaintiff’s myriad medical conditions. There is no explanation for why this effort

Case 2:05-cv-00644-FCD-GGH Document 43 Filed 03/15/07 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

2

was spared earlier and why this information was not before the magistrate judge. Indeed, there

does not appear to be any reason that defendants did not produce supporting evidence at the

appropriate time for the consideration of the magistrate judge. This belated effort constitutes an

unjustifiable attempt to undermine the process and serves to abrogate the principles of judicial

efficiency and economy. 

It is within this court’s discretion “not to consider evidence offered for the first

time in a party’s objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations...” 

Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 935 (9th Cir. 2004), citing Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 744 (9th

Cir. 2002). The Ninth Circuit has plainly stated that requiring the district judge to consider

evidence not previously set before the magistrate judge “would effectively nullify the magistrate

judge’s consideration of the matter and would not help to relieve the workload of the district

court.” U.S. v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 622 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Systemic efficiencies would be frustrated and the magistrate

judge’s role reduced to that of a mere dress rehearser if a party

were allowed to feint and weave at the initial hearing, and save its

knockout punch for the second round. In addition, it would be

fundamentally unfair to permit a litigant to ... wait to see which

way the wind was blowing, and - having received an unfavorable

recommendation - shift gears before the district judge.

Paterson-Leitch Co., Inc. v. Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Elec. Co., et al., 840 F.2d 985,

991 (9th Cir. 1988). This court elects to exercise its discretion not to consider the additional

evidence presented by defendants for the first time in objections. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of the record before the magistrate judge. 

Having made the appropriate review, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 8, 2007, are adopted in full;

and

Case 2:05-cv-00644-FCD-GGH Document 43 Filed 03/15/07 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

3

2. Plaintiff’s May 25, 2006, “emergency” motion for a preliminary injunction is

GRANTED, and defendants are enjoined to place plaintiff in window tinted cell housing within

30 days.

DATED: March 15, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-00644-FCD-GGH Document 43 Filed 03/15/07 Page 3 of 3