(PC) Brown v. Newsom ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEXTER BROWN, No. 2:19-cv-00329-TLN-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Dexter Brown (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil 18 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 21, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which 21 were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 19.) On April 10, 2020, 23 Plaintiff was granted until June 30, 2020, in which to file objections. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff did 24 not file objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 26 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 27 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 28 1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings 2 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 3 The Court additionally notes that, on May 8, 2020, in another civil matter filed by 4 Plaintiff, Dexter Brown v. Ram, No. 20-cv-0154-JAM-KJN (E.D. Cal. 2020), an order mailed to 5 Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable, marked “deceased.” Id. A court may take judicial notice 6 of court records. See, e.g., Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002) 7 (“[W]e may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal 8 judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.”) (internal 9 quotation omitted). Moreover, the inmate locator website for the California Department of 10 Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) no longer lists Plaintiff as housed in CDCR custody. 11 In light of Plaintiff’s apparent death, his motions for injunctive relief are moot and are 12 DENIED on that basis, as well as for the reasons set forth in the Findings and Recommendations 13 (ECF No. 19 at 7–10). Further, it is impossible for Plaintiff to prosecute this action. The Court 14 has considered whether to appoint counsel to represent Plaintiff’s estate but finds there are no 15 exceptional circumstances for doing so in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. 16 Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335–36 17 (9th Cir. 1990); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed February 21, 2020 (ECF No. 19), are 20 adopted in full; 21 2. Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief or temporary restraining orders 22 (ECF Nos. 7, 9) are DENIED as moot; 23 3. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice; and 24 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 DATED: August 25, 2020 27 28