Opinion
EDCV 18-1181-JGB (AGR)
06-07-2021
PEDRO LUIS RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. ARTHUR ANDERSON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the complaint, records on file, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report"), the Objections, the Response to Objections, and Plaintiffs requests for judicial notice. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Plaintiff has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
In his objections, Plaintiff raises new claims that are not in the Second Amended Complaint and in any event are without merit. Plaintiff contends that Defendants have not calculated an early parole release date ("EPRD"). In his objections, Plaintiff states that he believes he should have a "retroactive" EPRD of March 17, 2017. (Obj. at 2.) Plaintiff does not explain his calculation. The Report indicates that he started serving sentences under two different convictions on March 30, 2017. (Report at 10.) The objections attach a document indicating that Plaintiff now has an EPRD of September 29, 2021 after a loss of credits due to disciplinary proceedings. (Obj. at 7; see also Plaintiff's requests for judicial notice.) To the extent Plaintiff now seeks to challenge his disciplinary proceedings and loss of credits, such a proposed amendment is denied because it would not involve the same parties, would not arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and would not involve any common question of law or fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 20.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint is granted as moot and the entire action is dismissed without prejudice.