(PC) Bland v. Moffett ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA BLAND, No. 1:19-cv-01750-JLT-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR WRIT 14 D. MOFFETT, et al., (Docs. 52, 55, 56) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Joshua Bland is a state prisoner and seeks to hold correctional officers liable for violating 18 his civil rights— for an alleged failure to protect him from the attack of several other inmates— 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 Plaintiff filed an “original writ for common law remedy” on December 6, 2021 (Doc. 52) 22 and “writ for adequate remedy at law” March 2, 2022 (Doc. 55). The assigned magistrate judge 23 determined these were “indecipherable filings,” and based upon the sovereign citizen ideology 24 rejected by the courts. (Doc. 56 at 3-4, citing, e.g., U.S. v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 n.3 (9th 25 Cir. 1986); Mackey v. Bureau of Prisons, 2016 WL 3254037, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 14, 2016).) 26 The magistrate judge also found the “motions for writ are not relevant to the pending motion for 27 summary judgment by Defendants, nor do they otherwise relate to his pending claims.” (Id. at 4.) 1 Plaintiff filed “objections to court’s findings and recommendations” on May 4, 2022. 2 | (Doc. 58.) Plaintiff asserts he is “entitled to remedy with or without resort to a court” without 3 | explaining what he means by this jumble of words. (Jd. at 2.) Plaintiff does not address the 4 | findings of the magistrate judge that the writs do not relate to either his remaining claims or the 5 | motion for summary judgment that is now pending. (See generally Doc. 58 at 1-2.) Accordingly, 6 | Plaintiff's objections do not undermine or otherwise contradict the findings of the magistrate 7 | judge. 8 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this 9 | case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, including Plaintiff's objections, the Court 10 | concludes the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 11 | Thus, the Court ORDERS: 12 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 22, 2022 (Doc. 56) are 13 ADOPTED in full. 14 2. Plaintiff's “Original Writ for Common Law Remedy Pursuant to 28 USCA § 15 1333, and U.S. Judicial Act § 256 (1911), C. 231, 36 Stat. 1100” (Doc. 52) is 16 DENIED. 17 3. Plaintiff's “Writ for Adequate Remedy at Law (28 USCA SECT. 1333); 18 Notification of Record with Attached legal Notice and Demand; and Declaration in 19 Support of Writ for Adequate Remedy at Law” (Doc. 55) is DENIED. 20 4. This action is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _May 12, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28