Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01162/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01162-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL L. BANKS, CASE NO. CV F 06-1162 OWW LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER TO ADOPT FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION

vs.

MICHAEL J. YRACEBRUN,

Defendant.

 /

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Michael L. Banks (“plaintiff”) is incarcerated and proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“section 1983"). Plaintiff proceeds with a 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (“section 1983") form complaint (“complaint”) to name as defendant Michael J. Yracebrun

(“Mr. Yracebrun”), Supervising Deputy District Attorney with the Kern County District Attorney’s

Office (“DA’s Office”). The complaint indicates that the DA’s Office denied plaintiff’s request for

detailed information and statistics regarding “parolees of Bakersfield and Kern County from 1994 to

2006, who had prior strikes and suffered a new felony conviction solely drug violations [sic] and they

were returned to California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.” The complaint seeks an

order for the detailed parolee information and statistics. Plaintiff attaches to his complaint copies of

California court records to suggest California courts denied him relief sought here and his requests for

information under the California Public Records Act.

Case 1:06-cv-01162-OWW -LJO Document 13 Filed 11/29/06 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

The magistrate judge issued September 27, 2006 findings and recommendations to dismiss this

action without prejudice on grounds that the complaint: (1) fails to establish this Court’s subject matter

jurisdiction, to satisfy pleading requirements and to allege cognizable section 1983 claims; and (2)

appears intended to vex Mr. Yracebrun. Plaintiff filed no timely objections to the findings and

recommendation despite an extension to do so.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. After

evaluating the record, this Court finds the magistrate judge’s September 27, 2006 findings and

recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, this Court:

1. ADOPTS in full the magistrate judge’s September 27, 2006 findings and

recommendations;

2. DISMISSES this action without prejudice on grounds that the complaint: (1) fails to

establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, to satisfy pleading requirements and to

allege cognizable section 1983 claims; and (2) appears intended to vex Mr. Yracebrun;

and

3. DIRECTS this Court’s clerk to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01162-OWW -LJO Document 13 Filed 11/29/06 Page 2 of 2