Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01462/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01462-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Hamilton
Plaintiff
Unknown
Defendant

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE HAMILTON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

UNKNOWN, 

 Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01462-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(ECF Nos. 11, 27) 

This action was opened in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

California on July 18, 2013 based upon Plaintiff’s letter to the Honorable Thelton E. 

Henderson. Therein Plaintiff, an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”), alleged 

prison staff participated in a "pattern of racketeering activity," which led to an "extremely 

dangerous and stressful prison environment." On September 10, 2013, the case was 

ordered transferred to this Court and thereupon referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of California.

On November 12, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations

that Plaintiff’s motion for injunction be denied without prejudice. On December 9, 2013, 

Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

Case 1:13-cv-01462-AWI-MJS Document 44 Filed 01/13/14 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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.

The objections re-hash arguments in Plaintiff’s motion, that the “CDCR enterprise” 

structured a scheme of racial segregation and classification in furtherance of racketeering

activity which caused race riots. These arguments were previously considered and found 

deficient by the Magistrate Judge in the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff also

concludes this Court lacks jurisdiction and is not a proper venue; the Magistrate Judge did 

not afford liberal construction due a pro se plaintiff; and Plaintiff is likely to succeed on 

RICO civil claims against the CDCR enterprise.

These re-arguments and arguments do not raise an issue of law or fact under the 

findings and recommendations. The case law cited in the objections relates to constitutional 

claims and jurisdictional issues unrelated to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and 

determinations. It remains that Plaintiff has not named any defendants; may not sue the 

CDCR; has no cognizable claim before the Court; and has not asserted facts suggesting he 

is under threat of irreparable injury or that relative hardships tip in his favor. Plaintiff’s 

objections lack merit. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on November 12, 

2013 (ECF No. 27) in full, and 

2. The motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 11) is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDUCE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01462-AWI-MJS Document 44 Filed 01/13/14 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

Case 1:13-cv-01462-AWI-MJS Document 44 Filed 01/13/14 Page 3 of 3