(PC) Porter v. Hamman

Opinion

KEVIN LAMAR PORTER, Case No. 1:23-cv-01468 JLT SAB (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER VIVIAN HAMMAN, et al. (Docs. 34, 35) Defendants. Kevin Lama Porter seeks to hold Vivian Hamman liable for violations of Plaintiff’s civil rights arising under the First Amendment and California’s Bane Act while he was an inmate at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility. He alleges Defendant intentionally interfered with his First Amendment right to file a grievance by issuing a false report charging him with masturbating. (Docs. 1, 8.) Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order directed toward California Medical Facility, where he is currently housed. (Doc. 34.) Plaintiff asserts that he was assaulted by staff, “forced into a cell with feces all over the floor” due to a faulty drain and is being involuntarily medicated without a court order. (Id. at 3.) The magistrate judge found the Court is unable to grant the relief requested, because the Court lacks jurisdiction over prison officials at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville. (Doc. 35 at 3, citing Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010).) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the request for injunctive relief be denied. (/d.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 35 at 3.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the failure to file objections by the specified deadline may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Ud., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. As the magistrate Judge explained, “this ruling does not foreclose Plaintiff from raising his current allegations in a new civil rights action filed in the proper venue if he so desires.” (See Doc. 35 at 3.) Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on June 17, 2024 (Doc. 35) are ADOPTED in full. 2. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 34) is DENIED. Dated: _September 27, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE