Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00919/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00919-26/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

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

DAVID ESTRADA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GIPSON, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13cv00919 LJO DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND

STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS

(Document 66)

Plaintiff David Estrada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

Pauperis in this this civil action. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on August 7, 2013. 

This action is proceeding against (1) Defendants Gipson and Espinosa for retaliation in violation 

of the First Amendment; and (2) Defendants Gipson, Espinosa, Lambert and Cavazos for 

violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On January 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Sanctions, which the Court interpreted 

as a Motion for Injunctive Relief. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 

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

On February 14, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 

Plaintiff’s motion be stricken. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and 

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 76 Filed 03/26/14 Page 1 of 2
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

contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections

on March 21, 2014.

In accordance with the provisions of 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 finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record 

and by proper analysis.

In his objections, Plaintiff states that he wants the Court’s order sealing the complaint to 

be respected “by all of those [he] must come across.” Obj. 2. Plaintiff’s failure to abide by the 

Court’s prohibition against further motions attempting to remedy issues over which the Court 

does not have jurisdiction was addressed thoroughly by the Findings and Recommendations, and 

his objections only underscore the Court’s findings.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 14, 2014, are ADOPTED in 

full;

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Document 62) is STRICKEN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 76 Filed 03/26/14 Page 2 of 2