Opinion
Case No. C06-5340RJB.
May 31, 2007
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold. Dkt. 129. The Court has considered the relevant documents and the remainder of the file herein.
This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights action. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff is a resident of the Special Commitment Center ("SCC") and, because he is a frequent and vexatious litigator, is subject to a case management order that restricts his litigation. Dkt. 2. In the present matter, Plaintiff is limited to litigating the adverse consequences of a disciplinary hearing held on April 6, 2006, regarding alleged violations of SCC policy. Dkt. 2.
On January 29, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order regarding a period of time in which he alleges he was "put in lock down (to the unit) status." Dkt. 73. The facts relating to this incident are recounted in the Report and Recommendation, and need not be repeated here. On April 27, 2007, Plaintiff filed a pleading entitled "Appeal of Dkt. #127, #128 Orders and Response to Report and Recommendation #129" with a four page attachment. Dkt. 131. On May 8, 2007, the same pleading was docketed again, but with a five page attachment. Dkt. 134.
The pleadings state that, "[t]hese denials are borderline [sic] an abuse of discretion. Clearly this case will never get beyond point "A" as long as Judge Arnold remains in control. He must be replaced. He is obstructing justice a federal crime. There is no relationship between the mt for TRO and his description also." Dkts. 131 and 134. His attachments each state that he was "refused copies of these exhibits." Id. On May 15, 2007, this Court denied Plaintiff's Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) appeal and motion for recusal, but indicated that to the extent Plaintiff intends these pleadings (Dkts. 131 and 134) to be an objection to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 129), the Court would consider the remaining arguments when the Report and Recommendation is ripe for consideration on May 25, 2007. Dkt. 147. Defendants filed a Response to the Objections, and raise the argument that Plaintiff's exhibits, which state that he has been refused copies, are misleading. Dkt. 149. Defendants note that although he does not receive an unlimited number of copies, Plaintiff has been granted a substantial exception to the monthly allotment of copies. Id. On May 22, 2007, Plaintiff filed a "Reply to Response R R = TRO", and alleges that based on Judge Arnold's Report and Recommendation, he has been moved. Dkt. 168.
Plaintiff's argument, that the facts in the Report and Recommendation are not related to the facts in his motion for a temporary restraining order, is without merit. Moreover to the extent that Plaintiff intends that the Reply filed on May 22, 2007 (Dkt. 168) be considered as objections to this Report and Recommendation, the objections are without merit because they do not address the issues presented. Dkt. 168. As stated in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has failed to meet the standards required to be given the injunctive relief that he seeks. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. In light of the multiple pleadings already filed regarding this Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, (Dkt. 73), no motions for reconsideration will be entertained.
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that,
(1) U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 129) is ADOPTED;
(2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff, counsel for Defendants, and to the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold. Any Motions for Reconsideration of Adoption of this Report and Recommendation shall be docketed by the Clerk, but no further action will be taken.