Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00649/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00649-3/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

DANA RUSSWORM,

Plaintiff,

vs.

YATES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00649-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 11)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Docs. 3, 7)

Plaintiff, Dana Russworm (“plaintiff”), is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 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 Rule 72-302.

On October 3, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty (20)

days. On October 14, 2005, plaintiff filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

//

Case 1:05-cv-00649-AWI-LJO Document 13 Filed 12/02/05 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

27

28

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis. To the extent

Plaintiff asks that the court order Defendants to process his

administrative appeals, Plaintiff has no constitutional right to

an administrative grievance procedure. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461

U.S. 238, 249 (1983). As explained by the Magistrate Judge,

Plaintiff’s failure to complete the administrative process will

not result in dismissal of this action if Plaintiff can show

prison officials rendered the process unavailable. 

To the extent Plaintiff asks that the court issue a

preliminary injunction requiring prison officials to allow him to

receive his state criminal trial records, Plaintiff’s motion

fails to show a significant threat of irreparable injury. See

Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th

Cir. 1987). Plaintiff admits his federal habeas corpus petition

has been dismissed. Harm caused by Defendants’ failure to allow

Plaintiff to bring his habeas corpus petition is necessary to

maintain an access to the court’s claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518

U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (The right of access is merely the right to

bring to court a grievance and is limited to direct criminal

appeals, habeas petitions, and civil rights actions). Here, the

harm mentioned in the motion was Plaintiff’s failure to file

objections to Magistrate Judge’s recommendation in Plaintiff’s

federal habeas corpus case. The Constitution does not require

Defendants to enable Plaintiff to litigate effectively once in

Case 1:05-cv-00649-AWI-LJO Document 13 Filed 12/02/05 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

27

28

3

court. See Id. at 354. While in the objections Plaintiff

states his trial records are still necessary to file his appeal,

Plaintiff does not make this argument in his motion. A new

theory cannot properly be raised in objections to Findings and

Recommendations. Greenhow v. Secretary of HHS, 863 F.2d 633,

638-39 (9th Cir. 1988), overruled on other grounds by United

States v. Hardesty, 977 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir.1992). Factual

assertions that which could have been but were not presented to

the Magistrate Judge should be given no consideration when the

court is deciding whether to adopt Findings and Recommendations 

Sundaram v. County of Santa Barbara, 2001 WL 540515, *1 (C.D.Cal.

2001); Beam System, Inc. v. Checkpoint Systems, Inc., 1997 WL

423113, *9 n.9 (C.D.Cal. 1997). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 3,

2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief

and temporary restraining order, filed May 17, 2005 and June 19,

2005, is DENIED.

The action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge assigned

for further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00649-AWI-LJO Document 13 Filed 12/02/05 Page 3 of 3