Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01022/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01022-3/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNY STEWARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-01022-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THIS 

ACTION, AND CLOSING THIS CASE

(Doc. No. 25)

Plaintiff Donny Steward is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action 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.

In his original complaint, plaintiff asserted claims based on an incident that allegedly took 

place on May 16, 2019 at what was then his prison of confinement. (Doc. No. 1.) After the 

assigned magistrate judge screened his original complaint, plaintiff filed a first amended 

complaint (“FAC”), wherein he asserts additional causes of actions unrelated to the alleged May 

16, 2019 incident that was the subject of his original complaint and alleges facts that contradict 

the facts that he alleged in his original complaint. (Compare Doc. No. 1, with Doc. No. 21.) 

On February 10, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued the pending findings and 

recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed in its entirety. (Doc. No. 25.) 

Case 1:19-cv-01022-ADA-EPG Document 27 Filed 04/14/20 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

Specifically, the magistrate judge recommended that: (1) plaintiff’s federal claims relating to the 

May 16, 2019 incident be dismissed with prejudice, because “Plaintiff’s own facts establish that 

the pepper spray, ‘launcher bullets,’ and other force used against Plaintiff during the May 16, 

2019[] incident was needed to ‘maintain or restore discipline’ and was not used ‘maliciously and 

sadistically to cause harm;’” (2) plaintiff’s new federal claims asserted in the FAC that are 

unrelated to the May 16, 2019 incident be dismissed without prejudice; and (3) plaintiff’s state 

law claims be dismissed without prejudice, as a result of the court declining to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. (Id. at 10, 25) (quoting Hudson v. McMillian, 503 

U.S. 1, 6–7 (1992)). The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained 

notice that objections thereto were due within thirty (30) days of service of the order. (Id. at 19.) 

On February 24, 2020, plaintiff filed a “MOTION for Hearing on Pending Motions and for a 

Pretrial Date.” (Doc. No. 26.) Although not clearly labeled as objections to the pending findings 

and recommendations, the undersigned construes this filing as such.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, 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. Plaintiff’s objections do not meaningfully dispute 

the magistrate judge’s findings that, with respect to the May 16, 2019 incident, the allegations set 

forth in plaintiff’s FAC contradict the allegations of his original complaint, and that once those 

contradictory allegations are stricken, the remaining allegations foreclose the claims he is seeking 

to assert with respect to that incident as a matter of law. Nor does he object to the remaining 

recommendations, namely that his state law claims and new federal claims should be dismissed 

without prejudice. Accordingly, the court will adopt the February 10, 2020 findings and 

recommendations in full.

Finally, the court briefly addresses the various other motions plaintiff has filed. These 

include: (1) a motion to reconsider the undersigned September 18, 2019 order denying his 

motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”); (2) a motion to “log” medical records in 

support of that TRO; (3) an amended motion to “log” medical records in support of his motion for 

Case 1:19-cv-01022-ADA-EPG Document 27 Filed 04/14/20 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

a TRO; (4) an additional motion seeking reconsideration of the undersigned’s order denying his 

motion for a TRO; (5) a motion for relief from California Government Code § 954.4; (6) a motion 

“to log Exhibit A then D as Evidence of Retaliation”; and (7) the already-discussed motion for 

hearing on these pending motions and for the setting of a pretrial date. (Doc. Nos. 15, 16, 17, 20, 

23, 24, 26.) Because the undersigned will dismiss this action in its entirety, each of these motions 

filed by plaintiff has been rendered moot. Accordingly, they will be denied on that basis. 

For the reasons set forth above,

1. The February 10, 2020 findings and recommendations are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s federal claims related to the May 16, 2019 incident are dismissed with 

prejudice;

3. Plaintiff’s federal claims that are unrelated to the May 16, 2019 incident are 

dismissed without prejudice;

4. Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice;

5. Plaintiff’s various miscellaneous motions (Doc. Nos. 15, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, 26) are 

denied as having been rendered moot by the issuance of this order; and

6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01022-ADA-EPG Document 27 Filed 04/14/20 Page 3 of 3