# (PC) Peets v. Brown

> District Court, E.D. California · November 24, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10031913

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** November 24, 2021
- **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/10031913

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12 LOUIS PEETS, No. 2:18-CV-2469-KJM-DMC-P
13 Plaintiff,
14 v. ORDER
15 JERRY BROWN, JR., et al.,
16 Defendants.
17
18 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
19 § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern
20 District of California local rules.
21 On March 24, 2021, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which
22 were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within
23 the time specified therein. Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
24 recommendations. See ECF No. 48. Later, plaintiff filed a notice appealing the court’s denial of
25 a preliminary injunction. See ECF No. 51. “The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of
26 jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district
27 court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident
28 Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). While this court lacks jurisdiction to address
1 | further the preliminary injunction, it is not deprived of jurisdiction to address the pending findings
2 || and recommendations regarding the motion to dismiss.
3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
4 | court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the
5 || findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
7 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 24, 2021, are adopted in full;
8 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 32, is granted in part and denied in part;
9 3. Defendants’ motion is granted as to Plaintiffs equal protection claim (Claim IV)
10 | and Plaintiffs due process claim (Claim V);
11 4. Defendants’ motion is granted as to Plaintiff's claims against the remaining 13
12 || defendants;
13 5. Within 30 days of the date of this order, Plaintiff may file a third amended
14 | complaint;
15 6. If Plaintiff does not file a third amended complaint within the time provided, this
16 || action shall proceed on the second amended complaint as against Defendant Townsend only on
17 | Plaintiffs retaliation and religious exercise claims (Claim I, Claim II, and Claim III); and
18 7. Plaintiffs request for a copy of the order adopting the March 24, 2021 findings
19 || and recommendations, ECF No. 58, denied as moot given that this order will be served on
20 || Plaintiff and no prior order has addressed the findings and recommendations filed March 24,
21 | 2021.
22 | DATED: November 24, 2021.
23
24 l ti / ¢ q_/
95 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10031913. Public record. Not legal advice.