Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01468/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01468-8/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

MATTHEW H. BECKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCALIA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-01468-JLT-CDB (PC) 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY

(Docs. 23, 27)

Matthew H. Beckett is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 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.

The Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations, which concluded that the 

Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion for a return of property. (Doc. 27.) Because of the relief 

sought, the assigned Magistrate Judge construed the pleading as a motion for a preliminary 

injunction. (Id. at 1.) 

Plaintiff objects and states that he is seeking production of evidence and has made 

multiple attempts to obtain unspecified documents from the warden, the AG’s office, and the 

court. (Doc. 28 at 1.) Plaintiff attaches to his objections numerous documents that appear to be 

filings in another case pending in this District in which he is the named plaintiff. Notably, 

Plaintiff does not dispute the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the type of injunctive relief 

Case 1:20-cv-01468-CDB Document 38 Filed 12/22/23 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

Plaintiff requests (return of property) is different from the relief he seeks ultimately to be granted 

in this action. Nor does Plaintiff challenge that the Court lacks authority to grant Plaintiff his 

requested remedy absent a nexus between that remedy and the conduct asserted in the complaint.

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

case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court 

concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 

analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1, The findings and recommendations issued on October 2, 2023, (Doc. 27), are 

ADOPTED IN FULL.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, (Doc. 23), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2023 

Case 1:20-cv-01468-CDB Document 38 Filed 12/22/23 Page 2 of 2