Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01343/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01343-13/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK MONACO BAZZO,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. GATES, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01343-KES-CDB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT 

ON THE PLEADINGS AND MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Doc. 60

Plaintiff Frank Monaco Bazzo is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge 

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

On August 8, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending denial of Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and injunctive relief. 

Doc. 60. The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that 

any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days of service. Id. at 17. Plaintiff filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations on August 21, 2024. Doc. 61.

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

novo review of this case, including Plaintiff’s objections. In his objections, Plaintiff asserts that 

the denial of his motion for judgment on the pleadings is improper because Defendants did not 

support their affirmative defenses with admissible evidence. Doc. 61 at 4–5. However, at the 

Case 1:21-cv-01343-KES-CDB Document 72 Filed 12/16/24 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

pleading stage of litigation, Defendants are not required to support affirmative defenses with 

admissible evidence. Rather, they “need only raise questions of material fact or present 

affirmative defenses; they are not yet required to prove their case.” Hamilton v. Yates, 2014 WL 

4660814, *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2014) (citing Gen. Conf. Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. 

Seventh-Day Adventist Congregational Church, 887 F.2d 228, 230 (9th Cir. 1989)).

Plaintiff also objects to the recommended denial of injunctive relief. Doc. 61 at 2. The 

magistrate judge found the court could not award the injunctive relief Plaintiff seeks, as Plaintiff 

requests an order directing the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

(“CDCR”) to take certain actions, but CDCR is not a party to this case and the court therefore 

does not have personal jurisdiction over CDCR. While Plaintiff objects that CDCR is no longer a 

party because the Court dismissed CDCR in a prior order (see Docs. 25, 27, 28), that dismissal 

was appropriate and Plaintiff cannot relitigate it through his objections to these new findings and 

recommendations. Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections do not undermine the magistrate judge’s 

analysis.

Having carefully reviewed the file, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds the 

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 8, 2024 (ECF No. 60) are 

ADOPTED in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and for injunctive relief (ECF No. 54) 

is DENIED; and

3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01343-KES-CDB Document 72 Filed 12/16/24 Page 2 of 2