(PC) Smith v. Davis et al, No. 1:2007cv01632 - Document 79 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 72 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING 63 , 65 Motions for Preliminary Injunctive Relief signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/26/2009. (Bradley, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Smith v. Davis et al Doc. 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MICHAEL LENOIR SMITH, 10 11 12 CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01632-AWI-GSA PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF v. SGT. DAVIS, et al., (Docs. 63, 65, and 72) 13 Defendants. / 14 15 This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff Michael Lenoir 16 Smith, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. The matter was referred to a United 17 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 18 On September 4, 2009, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff ’s motions seeking 19 preliminary injunctive relief be denied as moot. The parties were given fifteen days within which 20 to file objections. Plaintiff filed an objection on September 18, 2009. 21 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 22 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 23 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 24 Plaintiff ’s motions, in which he sought an order directing the release of his legal material, 25 are rendered moot by his concession that he received his legal material. (Doc. 68.) In addition, the 26 Court lacks jurisdiction to issue an order intended to remedy Plaintiff’s current conditions of 27 confinement because such an order would not remedy any of the legal claims in this action, which 28 arise from events that occurred at a different prison in 2007. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation 2 of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of Los 3 Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 4, 2009, is adopted in full; and 6 2. Plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction, filed June 3, 2009, and June 8, 2009, 7 are DENIED as moot. 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 0m8i78 October 26, 2009 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 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.
