# (PC) Bowell v. California Department of Corrections

> District Court, E.D. California · November 6, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10023275

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** November 6, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10023275

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JAMES BOWELL, No. 2:17-cv-0981 KJM KJN P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16

17
18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided
20 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
21 On July 30, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were
22 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings
23 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Plaintiff filed objections to the
24 findings and recommendations. Defendants did not file a reply.
25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
26 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Plaintiff does not contest the Magistrate
27 Judge’s conclusion that the defendants violated no clearly established law. The court agrees with
28 and adopts that conclusion. When, as is true here, officers “act[] in reliance on a duly-enacted
1 statute or ordinance,” they are “ordinarily entitled to qualified immunity.” Tshida v. Motl, 924
2 F.3d 1297, 1305 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Grossman v. City of Portland, 33 F.3d 1200, 1209 (9th
3 Cir. 1994)). “[L]iability may attach only where (1) the statute ‘authorizes official conduct which
4 is patently violative of fundamental constitutional principles,’ or (2) the official ‘unlawfully
5 enforces an ordinance in a particularly egregious manner, or in a manner which a reasonable
6 officer would recognize exceeds the bounds of the ordinance.’” Id. (quoting Grossman, 33 F.3d
7 at 1209–10). No allegations in the complaint could show that the tuberculosis testing
8 requirements in question or the defendants’ actions satisfy either of these requirements.
9 Plaintiff instead requests a stay pending his release from custody so that he can “have a
10 law firm properly respond and draft [arguments on the] merits of [his] claim.” Objections at 1,
11 ECF No. 81. Four factors are generally relevant when evaluating a request for a stay: (1) whether
12 the party requesting a stay has made a “strong showing” of likely success on the merits,
13 (2) whether a stay will prevent irreparable injury; (3) whether a stay would “substantially injure
14 the other parties,” and (4) “where the public interest lies.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 428, 434
15 (2009). Plaintiff has not carried his burden to show that these factors favor a stay. He has not
16 made a strong showing of likely success on the merits, it is unclear whether continued
17 tuberculosis tests will cause him harm, and a stay would unnecessarily delay the resolution of this
18 matter.
19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
20 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 30, 2020 are adopted in full;
21 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 56) is granted; and
22 3. This action is dismissed without prejudice.
23 DATED: November 5, 2020.
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10023275. Public record. Not legal advice.