Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01518/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01518-13/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN HARDNEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-1518 FCD JFM P

vs.

T.L. ROSARIO, et al.,

Defendants. 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On September 14, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein 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 twenty days. Neither

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

However, on October 15, 2007, plaintiff filed another request for protective order

based on conditions of confinement in the California State Prison at Lancaster, California, most

of which are duplicative of the requests addressed in the September 14, 2007 findings and

recommendations. The specific allegations contained within plaintiff’s October 15, 2007 request

Case 2:02-cv-01518-FCD-JFM Document 111 Filed 10/30/07 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

1

 Plaintiff’s October 15, 2007 five page request is accompanied by 115 pages of exhibits. 

If plaintiff files a new complaint in the Central District of California, plaintiff may request that

this court forward a copy of the filing to the United States District Court for the Central District

of California for its consideration.

2

is not part of the underlying complaint in this action and, therefore, will not be given a hearing

on the merits at trial. Complaints concerning conditions of confinement at CSP-Lancaster are

more appropriately addressed to the United States District Court for the Central District of

California. Thus, plaintiff’s October 15, 2007 request will be denied without prejudice to its

refiling in the Central District.1

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 14, 2007 are adopted in

full; 

2. Plaintiff’s July 26, 2007 and August 9, 2007 motions for protective order,

construed as requests for preliminary injunctive relief are denied;

3. Plaintiff’s September 11, 2007 request is denied; and

4. Plaintiff’s October 15, 2007 request is denied without prejudice. 

DATED: October 30, 2007.

Case 2:02-cv-01518-FCD-JFM Document 111 Filed 10/30/07 Page 2 of 2