(PC) Calderon v. Bonta
Opinion
JUAN CALDERON, No. 2: 23-cv-1064 WBS KJN P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ROB BONTA, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief filed October 23, 2023, and November 3, 2023 (ECF Nos. 25, 27, 28) be denied. Background On August 3, 2023, the undersigned recommended dismissal of this action on the grounds that plaintiff’s amended complaint failed to state a potentially colorable claim for relief. (ECF No. 12.) The undersigned found that defendant California Attorney General Bonta was entitled to absolute immunity as to those claims related to his official duties as California State Attorney General. (Id. at 2.) As to the claims unrelated to defendant Bonta’s official duties, the undersigned found that plaintiff failed to adequately link defendant Bonta to these claims. (Id. at 2-3.) The undersigned also found that plaintiff’s claims unrelated to defendant Bonta’s official duties were vague, conclusory and largely unbelievable. (Id. at 3.) On August 28, 2023, the Honorable William B. Shubb adopted the August 3, 2023 findings and recommendations and judgment was entered. (ECF Nos. 16, 17.) On September 22, 2023, and September 25, 2023, plaintiff filed notices of appeal from the August 28, 2023 judgment. (ECF Nos. 18, 19.) As stated above, plaintiff filed the pending motions for injunctive relief on October 23, 2023 and November 3, 2023. (ECF Nos. 25, 27, 28.) On December 6, 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed plaintiff’s appeal for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 32.) The mandate was issued twenty-one days thereafter. (Id.) Discussion Although difficult to understand, it appears that the claims raised in the pending motions for injunctive relief are related to the claims raised in the amended complaint. Plaintiff also attaches an amended complaint to the motion for injunctive relief filed October 23, 2023. (ECF No. 25-1 at 5-18.) Plaintiff filed the pending motions for injunctive relief and amended complaint at the time his appeal was pending in the Ninth Circuit. Therefore, this court did not have jurisdiction over plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief and proposed amended complaint at the time they were filed. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (“The filing of a notice of appeal ... confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.”). This action ended with the dismissal of plaintiff’s appeal by the Ninth Circuit. See Hall v. Hall, 138 S. Ct. 1118, 1123-24 (2018) (a final decision ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment). Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief, including the request to file a proposed amended complaint contained in the motion for injunctive relief filed October 23, 2023, be denied because the court did not have jurisdiction over these motions when they were filed and this action is now over. //// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief and request to file a proposed amended complaint (ECF Nos. 25, 27, 28) be denied. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: January 26, 2024 Aectl Aharon UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Card1064.ord
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
(PC) Calderon v. Bonta ((PC) Calderon v. Bonta) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.