(PC) Sekona v. Francis

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 1, 2024
• Docket: 1:19-cv-00529
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ETUATE SEKONA, Case No. 1:19-cv-00529-KES-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. 14 M. FRANCIS, Doc. 116 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Etuate Sekona is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in the 18 instant action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant 19 Francis, an employee of Kern Valley State Prison, alleging Defendant’s deliberate indifference to 20 serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The matter was referred to a United 21 States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On October 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). 23 Doc. 114. On October 30, 2023, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to 24 deny Plaintiff’s motion. Doc. 116. Plaintiff timely filed objections. Doc. 117. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 26 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the objections, the 27 Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 28 analysis. Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO essentially opposed the Court’s continuance of his trial 1 | date from October 31, 2023, to March 26, 2024, arguing that the continuance violated his Sixth 2 | and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Doc. 114. Plaintiff's motion also requested that the Court 3 | order two witnesses to provide updated addresses. Jd. at 2. 4 Plaintiffs objections largely restate the allegations made in his motion and do not 5 | undermine the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. See Docs. 114, 117. The Sixth 6 | Amendment right to a speedy trial applies to criminal defendants, not to Plaintiff's civil action. 7 | “[T]he Sixth Amendment does not govern civil cases.” Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431, 441 8 | (2011). To the extent Plaintiff asserts a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim, the 9 | Court’s reasonable continuance of his civil trial due to its impacted docket did not implicate any 10 | such right. See Los Angeles Cnty. Bar Ass’n v. Eu, 979 F.2d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1992) (finding no 11 | basis in Constitution for rigid right to resolution of civil claims within specific time frame). The 12 | findings and recommendations accurately described the Court’s need to manage its impacted 13 | docket. Since the issuance of the findings and recommendation, the March 26, 2024, trial date 14 | was vacated due to the elevation of the prior district judge. The previously vacated Pretrial 15 | Conference and Jury Trial dates will now be reset in this case. 16 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 17 1. The findings and recommendations filed on October 30, 2023 (Doc. 116) are 18 | ADOPTED in full; 19 2. Plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 114) is DENIED; 20 3. The matter is returned to the magistrate judge for further proceedings, including the 21 | setting of Pretrial Conference and Jury Trial dates in this action. 22 23 94 | □□ □□ SO ORDERED. _ 25 Dated: _ March 29, 2024 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27 28