Opinion
1:19-cv-01750-JLT-SKO (PC)
05-12-2022
JOSHUA BLAND, Plaintiff, v. D. MOFFETT, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR WRIT (DOCS. 52, 55, 56)
Joshua Bland is a state prisoner and seeks to hold correctional officers liable for violating his civil rights- for an alleged failure to protect him from the attack of several other inmates- under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
Plaintiff filed an “original writ for common law remedy” on December 6, 2021 (Doc. 52) and “writ for adequate remedy at law” March 2, 2022 (Doc. 55). The assigned magistrate judge determined these were “indecipherable filings, ” and based upon the sovereign citizen ideology rejected by the courts. (Doc. 56 at 3-4, citing, e.g., U.S. v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 n.3 (9th Cir. 1986); Mackey v. Bureau of Prisons, 2016 WL 3254037, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 14, 2016).) The magistrate judge also found the “motions for writ are not relevant to the pending motion for summary judgment by Defendants, nor do they otherwise relate to his pending claims.” (Id. at 4.) Thus, the magistrate judge recommended the motions be denied as frivolous. (Id. at 5.)
Plaintiff filed “objections to court's findings and recommendations” on May 4, 2022. (Doc. 58.) Plaintiff asserts he is “entitled to remedy with or without resort to a court” without explaining what he means by this jumble of words. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff does not address the findings of the magistrate judge that the writs do not relate to either his remaining claims or the motion for summary judgment that is now pending. (See generally Doc. 58 at 1-2.) Accordingly, Plaintiff's objections do not undermine or otherwise contradict the findings of the magistrate judge.
According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, including Plaintiff's objections, the Court concludes the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 22, 2022 (Doc. 56) are ADOPTED in full.
2. Plaintiff's “Original Writ for Common Law Remedy Pursuant to 28 USCA § 1333, and U.S. Judicial Act § 256 (1911), C. 231, 36 Stat. 1100” (Doc. 52) is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff's “Writ for Adequate Remedy at Law (28 USCA SECT. 1333); Notification of Record with Attached legal Notice and Demand; and Declaration in Support of Writ for Adequate Remedy at Law” (Doc. 55) is DENIED.
4. This action is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.