Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00960/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00960-8/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANTOINE L. ARDDS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WILLIAM KNIPP, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-960-KJM-EFB P 

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 as provided 

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

 On May 17, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 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 fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the 

findings and recommendations. 

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court 

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

The court writes separately to address attachments to plaintiff’s objections to the findings 

and recommendations. ECF No. 57. Plaintiff includes several attachments that appear to make 

Case 2:14-cv-00960-KJM-EFB Document 65 Filed 09/28/16 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

new allegations against staff at California Men’s Colony (CMC) and Salinas Valley State Prison 

(SVSP). ECF No. 57 at 3-5, 6-25. Plaintiff’s claims in this case involve staff at Mule Creek State 

Prison. See ECF No. 7, 22, 23. To the extent that plaintiff wishes to initiate a new action against 

officials at CMC or SVSP, plaintiff would need to file new complaints in the appropriate court, 

which would appear to be the Central District of California and the Northern District of 

California, respectively. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 17, 2016, are adopted in full; and 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 47), construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction, is 

denied. 

DATED: September 27, 2016 

Case 2:14-cv-00960-KJM-EFB Document 65 Filed 09/28/16 Page 2 of 2