The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DEXTER BROWN, No. 2:19-cv-00329-TLN-KJN
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff Dexter Brown (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil
18 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States
19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20 On February 21, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which
21 were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings
22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 19.) On April 10, 2020,
23 Plaintiff was granted until June 30, 2020, in which to file objections. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff did
24 not file objections to the findings and recommendations.
25 Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v.
26 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are
27 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.
28 1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1 Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings
2 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.
3 The Court additionally notes that, on May 8, 2020, in another civil matter filed by
4 Plaintiff, Dexter Brown v. Ram, No. 20-cv-0154-JAM-KJN (E.D. Cal. 2020), an order mailed to
5 Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable, marked “deceased.” Id. A court may take judicial notice
6 of court records. See, e.g., Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)
7 (“[W]e may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal
8 judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.”) (internal
9 quotation omitted). Moreover, the inmate locator website for the California Department of
10 Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) no longer lists Plaintiff as housed in CDCR custody.
11 In light of Plaintiff’s apparent death, his motions for injunctive relief are moot and are
12 DENIED on that basis, as well as for the reasons set forth in the Findings and Recommendations
13 (ECF No. 19 at 7–10). Further, it is impossible for Plaintiff to prosecute this action. The Court
14 has considered whether to appoint counsel to represent Plaintiff’s estate but finds there are no
15 exceptional circumstances for doing so in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v.
16 Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335–36
17 (9th Cir. 1990); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009).
18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
19 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed February 21, 2020 (ECF No. 19), are
20 adopted in full;
21 2. Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief or temporary restraining orders
22 (ECF Nos. 7, 9) are DENIED as moot;
23 3. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice; and
24 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
25 IT IS SO ORDERED.
26 DATED: August 25, 2020
27
28