(PC)Bazzo v. Gates

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANK MONACO BAZZO, Case No. 1:21-cv-01343-KES-CDB (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND MOTION FOR 14 S. GATES, et al. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

15 Defendants. Doc. 60

16 17 Plaintiff Frank Monaco Bazzo is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 18 action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On August 8, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending denial of Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and injunctive relief. 22 Doc. 60. The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that 23 any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days of service. Id. at 17. Plaintiff filed 24 objections to the findings and recommendations on August 21, 2024. Doc. 61. 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, including Plaintiff’s objections. In his objections, Plaintiff asserts that 27 the denial of his motion for judgment on the pleadings is improper because Defendants did not support their affirmative defenses with admissible evidence. Doc. 61 at 4–5. However, at the 1 | pleading stage of litigation, Defendants are not required to support affirmative defenses with 2 || admissible evidence. Rather, they “need only raise questions of material fact or present 3 | affirmative defenses; they are not yet required to prove their case.” Hamilton v. Yates, 2014 WL 4 | 4660814, *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2014) (citing Gen. Conf. Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. 5 | Seventh-Day Adventist Congregational Church, 887 F.2d 228, 230 (9th Cir. 1989)). 6 Plaintiff also objects to the recommended denial of injunctive relief. Doc. 61 at 2. The 7 | magistrate judge found the court could not award the injunctive relief Plaintiff seeks, as Plaintiff 8 || requests an order directing the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 9 | (“CDCR”) to take certain actions, but CDCR is not a party to this case and the court therefore 10 || does not have personal jurisdiction over CDCR. While Plaintiff objects that CDCR is no longer a 11 || party because the Court dismissed CDCR in a prior order (see Docs. 25, 27, 28), that dismissal 12 | was appropriate and Plaintiff cannot relitigate it through his objections to these new findings and 13 || recommendations. Therefore, Plaintiff's objections do not undermine the magistrate judge’s 14 | analysis. 15 Having carefully reviewed the file, including Plaintiff's objections, the Court finds the 16 | findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 8, 2024 (ECF No. 60) are 19 ADOPTED in full; 20 2. Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings and for injunctive relief (ECF No. 54) 21 is DENIED; and 22 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 23 24 95 | IT ISSO ORDERED. _ 26 Dated: _ December 13, 2024 4h 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE