(PC) Calderon v. Covello

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JUAN CARLOS CALDERON, No. 2:23-cv-2049 WBS CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER P. COVELLO, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motions to investigate and for reasonable awareness. (ECF Nos. 35, 38.) Also pending is defendant’s motion to opt out of the Post-Screening ADR Project. (ECF No. 41.) For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s motions are denied, and defendant’s motion is granted.

22 Plaintiff’s Motions to Investigate and For Reasonable Awareness 23 This action proceeds on plaintiff’s amended complaint as to defendant Campos. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant Campos used excessive force and denied plaintiff adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id.) 26 In the motion to investigate, plaintiff requests that the court “take all reasonable actions to investigate and stop the illegal, criminal and unconstitutional wrongs, crime of hatred and offensive conduct of all defendants or Governmental authorities in charge of denying or depriving || plaintiff of all federally protected rights for 33 years now...” (ECF No. 35 at 1.) In the motion || for reasonable awareness, plaintiff alleges that he has been subjected to sexual experimentational || torts, invasion of privacy, sleep deprivation, and other “outrageous torturous living conditions for | many years now.” (ECF No. 38 at 1-2.) Plaintiff requests that the court take all necessary and || reasonable actions to investigate and stop “this whole situation complained of...” (Id. at 2.)

6 Plaintiffs claims in his pending motions are not directly related to the claims on which || this action proceeds against defendant Campos. For this reason, this court lacks authority to grant || the relief sought. Cf. Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631, | 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (absent a nexus between the injury claimed in the motion and the underlying || complaint, the court lacks the authority to grant injunctive relief). Accordingly, plaintiff's || motions are denied.

12 | Defendant’s Motion to Opt Out 13 On February 5, 2024, defendant filed an executed waiver of service. (ECF No. 32.) On || February 7, 2024, the court referred this action to the Post-Screening ADR Project. (ECF No. | 33.) In the pending motion, defendant requests to opt out of the Post-Screening ADR Project.

16 | (ECF No. 41.) Good cause appearing, defendant’s motion is granted.

17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. Plaintiff's motions to investigate and for reasonable awareness (ECF Nos. 35, 38) are 19 denied; 20 2. Defendant’s motion to opt out of the Post-Screening ADR Project (ECF No. 41) is 21 granted; and 22 3. Defendant shall file a responsive pleading to plaintiff's amended complaint within 23 thirty days of the date of this order.

25 || Dated: April 16, 2024 a oa Aan Spe | CHI SOO KIM 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE || Cald2049.opt 2