(PC) Fregia v. Chen

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MARK A. FREGIA, No. 1:20-cv-01024-KES-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 12 v. RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ORDERS 13 YUCUI CHEN, et al., UNDER THE ALL WRITS ACT 14 Defendants. (Docs. 60, 104, 107) 15 16 17 Plaintiff Mark A. Fregia (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed separate 19 motions under the All Writs Act seeking an injunction and an order requiring prison officials to 20 return legal documents he claims they confiscated. Docs. 60, 104. The magistrate judge issued 21 findings and recommendations on July 14, 2023, recommending that Plaintiff’s motions be 22 denied. Doc. 107. The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained 23 notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. On August 7, 24 2023, the magistrate judge granted Plaintiff an extension of time to August 10, 2023, to file any 25 objections. Doc. 112. Plaintiff timely filed objections on August 9, 2023. Doc. 113.1 26 1 Subsequently, on August 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a document that purported to provide 27 supplemental evidence regarding his motions for orders under the All Writs Act. Doc. 115. Plaintiff’s supplemental filing failed to comply with the Court’s August 10, 2023, deadline for the 28 filing of objections. On March 29, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge granted Defendants’ 1 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of 2 | this case. Plaintiffs objections largely reiterate arguments made in his motions. Plaintiff 3 | continues to fail to explain with clarity and specificity the missing legal materials or how 4 | Defendants’ supervisors or staff at Mule Creek State Prison are currently impeding his ability to 5 | litigate this action. As set forth in the findings and recommendations, this stands in contrast to the 6 | declarations and exhibits filed by Defendants, which explain the efforts undertaken to investigate 7 | Plaintiff's allegations and to ensure Plaintiff's access to his legal property. 8 Having carefully reviewed the filings, including Plaintiff's objections, the Court 9 || concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.” 10 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 11 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 14, 2023, Doc. 107, are ADOPTED IN 12 FULL; 13 2. Plaintiffs motion for an order under the All Writs Act, Doc. 60, and third motion for an 14 order under the All Writs Act, Doc. 104, are DENIED; and 15 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 16 17 1g | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 19 Dated: _ April 1, 2024 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 | motion to strike Plaintiff's supplemental filing. Docs. 118, 142. Moreover, the Court notes that Plaintiff's supplemental filing did not identify any specific factual or legal disputes with the findings and recommendations. 23 > The magistrate judge’s decision also included orders denying Plaintiffs request to disqualify the 24 | State Attorney General’s Office, denying Plaintiff's request for a stay, and granting in part Plaintiffs request for an extension of time to file his opposition to Defendants’ summary 25 judgment motion. Doc. 113. To the extent Plaintiff's objections seek reconsideration of these 26 orders, the Court has conducted a review of the orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and finds they were not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Security Farms vy. Int'l Brotherhood 27 | of Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999, 1014 (9th Cir. 1997) (“review under the clearly erroneous standard is significantly deferential, requiring a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 28 | committed”).

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