Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02114/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02114-6/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 ALLEN MAZURAK,

Plaintiff, 2:03-cv-2114-GEB-GGH-P

vs.

CA. DEPT. OF JUSTICE, 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 August 7, 2006, 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. Defendants

have filed objections to the findings and recommendations to which Plaintiff filed a reply. 

Defendants’ objections seek more relief than they sought in their motion. Specifically,

Defendants’ motion challenged Plaintiff’s prayer for an injunction in which Plaintiff seeks an

order compelling Defendants to “correct/purge erroneous records.” (Motion at 3.) Defendants

argued Plaintiff has no constitutional basis for this prayer, but even if he does, Plaintiff “cannot

Case 2:03-cv-02114-GEB-GGH Document 67 Filed 09/20/06 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

 Dismissal, but not judgment, is appropriate in a case where the court has found that the 1

matter before it is not yet ripe for adjudication, which implicates subject matter jurisdiction.

United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552, 556 (9 Cir. 2006). th

2

prove the required irreparable injury, and the court should discretionarily deny equitable relief

because [Plaintiff] ha[s] an adequate remedy at California law which [has] not [been] exhausted.” 

(Id.) Whereas in their objections, Defendants argue a contrary position on whether Plaintiff

needs to exhaust state remedies. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

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

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 7, 2006, are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s September 14, 2005, motion for permanent injunction is denied; and 

3. Defendants’ October 20, 2005, motion for summary judgment is granted, and

this matter is dismissed.1

Dated: September 19, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-02114-GEB-GGH Document 67 Filed 09/20/06 Page 2 of 2