(PC) Wohl v. Davis, et al, No. 1:2003cv06921 - Document 27 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; DENYING 13 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; DENYING 15 Motion for Emergency Reveiw, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/9/2010. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
(PC) Wohl v. Davis, et al Doc. 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 STEVEN J. WOHL, 10 11 12 CASE NO. 1:03-cv-06921-LJO-SKO PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER v. GRAY DAVIS, et al., (Docs. 13, 15, 16) 13 Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Steven J. Wohl (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 16 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 On February 3, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations which 19 recommended that Plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining order be denied. The Findings and 20 Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to 21 the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date on which the 22 Findings and Recommendations were served. Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and 23 Recommendations on July 7, 2010. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 305, this Court 25 has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court 26 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 27 Notably, Plaintiff complains that the Court has taken too long to rule on the motions and that 28 “delayed Court injunctive action is now too late and actually moot.” (Pl.’s Objections to Magistrate 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Report and Recommendation on Mot. for TRO and Prelim. Inj. Hr’g, Ex. in Supp., Decl. of Steven 2 J. Wohl 3:12-13, ECF No. 26.) 3 Nonetheless, Plaintiff requests the Court to order prison officials to provide Plaintiff with 4 numerous accommodations related to Plaintiff’s medical needs, such as an extra mattress, lower 5 bunk, use of personal sneakers, Vicodin, and daily showers. As noted in the Magistrate Judge’s 6 Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to the 7 extraordinary remedy of a temporary restraining order. Most significantly, Plaintiff has not 8 adequately demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his case. The Court dismissed 9 Plaintiff’s complaint on June 29, 2010 for failing to state any claims upon which relief can be 10 granted under Section 1983.1 (Doc. #25.) The Court is not inclined to grant the relief requested 11 when Defendants have not been served or made an appearance in this action, have not had the 12 opportunity to object to Plaintiff’s requests for relief, and Plaintiff has not stated any cognizable 13 claims for relief. 14 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 15 1. The February 3, 2010 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED in full; and 16 2. Plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining order are DENIED. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 July 9, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint which cures the deficiencies identified by the Court. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.