(PC) Moten v. Adams et al, No. 1:2007cv00924 - Document 45 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 41 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER Denying 35 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 05/20/2010. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Moten v. Adams et al Doc. 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 JESSE T. MOTEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) DERRAL ADAMS, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) NO. 1:07 cv 00924 AWI MJS PC ORDER RE: FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS Document # 41 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 15 Document # 35 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. The matter was 18 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 19 302. 20 On February 4, 2010, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that 21 Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief filed on July 24, 2009, be denied. The 22 recommendation was based on Plaintiff’s failure to establish, by a clear showing, that he is likely 23 to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in 24 his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. See Winter v. Natural Resources 25 Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008). Specifically, the court found that Plaintiff 26 identified at most a hypothetical possibility of future harm. On March 24, 2010, Plaintiff filed 27 objections to the findings and recommendations. 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In his motion for injunctive relief, Plaintiff sought a court order allowing him 4-6 hours 2 per week of law library access. In his objections, Plaintiff complains of “elongated lockdowns” 3 and inadequate access to the law library. Plaintiff, by declaration attached to his objections, 4 continues to argue that he will suffer harm if he is not allowed 4-6 hours of law library access per 5 week. Plaintiff recounts the difficulties he is having in conducting legal research. Plaintiff does 6 not, however, meet the standard set forth in Winters. Plaintiff has not shown he is likely to 7 succeed on the merits of his claim because Plaintiff has not shown any specific Court deadlines 8 he is facing in any litigation. 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 305, this 10 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 11 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 12 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 13 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on February 4, 14 15 2010, are adopted in full; and 2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief filed on July 24,2009, is denied. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: 0m8i78 May 20, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
