Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00051/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00051-14/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

JOSHUA DAVIS BLAND,

Plaintiff,

v.

JON MOSSINGER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-00051-DAD-DB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO STAY

(Doc. Nos. 45, 49, 50)

Plaintiff Joshua Davis Bland is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action 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 Rule 302.

On September 19, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motions to stay this action (Doc. Nos. 45, 49) be 

denied because “[p]laintiff has failed to show why a stay of these proceedings is necessary.” 

(Doc. No. 50 at 2.)1 Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and 

contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty (20) days of service. 

(Id. at 3.) On September 30, 2022, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and 

1 Though not entirely clear, it appears that plaintiff had sought to stay proceedings in this civil 

action because he also had a federal habeas petition pending in this court, and he believed that the 

granting of federal habeas relief would impact this civil rights action. (Doc. No. 50 at 2.) 

Case 2:20-cv-00051-DAD-SCR Document 54 Filed 02/14/23 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

recommendations. (Doc. No. 53.) Defendants did not file a response thereto nor objections of 

their own.

Plaintiff’s objections consist of a single sentence in which plaintiff states that he “objects 

to the court’s findings and recommendations to dismiss this action.” (Id. at 1) (emphasis added). 

However, the pending findings and recommendations recommend only the denial of plaintiff’s 

motions to stay, not dismissal of this action. Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections provide no basis 

upon which to reject the pending findings and recommendations. The undersigned also notes that 

the federal habeas petition that plaintiff had referred to in his motions to stay this civil rights 

action was dismissed by the court as frivolous on September 20, 2022. See Bland v. Warden, 

2:21-cv-00518-TLN-DB, Doc. No. 19 (Sept. 20, 2022).

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

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.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 19, 2022 (Doc. No. 50) 

are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motions to stay (Doc. Nos. 45, 49) are denied; and

3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2023 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-00051-DAD-SCR Document 54 Filed 02/14/23 Page 2 of 2