(PC)Davis v. Kelso et al, No. 1:2010cv01184 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 19 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING Additional Motion for Injunctive Relief 22 signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/2/2011. Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunctive Relief 10 , 11 , 12 and 13 are DENIED. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
(PC)Davis v. Kelso et al Doc. 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CHARLES T. DAVIS, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01184-LJO-GBC (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 19) v. CLARK J. KELSO, et. al., 13 ORDER DENYING ADDITIONAL MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Doc. 22) Defendants. 14 / 15 I. Procedural History 16 Charles T. Davis (“Plaintiff’) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 17 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (Americans with 18 Disabilities Act). This action was filed on July 1, 2010. (Doc. 1). On September 16, 2010, Plaintiff 19 filed two motions for injunctive relief. (Docs. 10, 11). On November 9, 2010, and November 29, 20 2010, Plaintiff filed renewed motions for emergency injunctive relief. (Docs. 12, 13). On May 13, 21 2011, an order was issued to file an additional preliminary injunction that was erroneously filed in 22 another case. (Doc. 23). On October 4, 2010, Plaintiff filed an additional morion for preliminary 23 injunction which was filed in this case on May 13, 2011. (Docs. 22, 23). Plaintiff is currently 24 housed at Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP) and the events that give rise to the current requests 25 for injunction occurred while a prisoner at PVSP. The matter was referred to a United States 26 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 27 On May 10, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 was served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the Findings and 2 Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and 3 Recommendations on May 27, 2011. (Doc. 25). 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 5 de novo review of this case. The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff’s additional motion for injunctive 6 relief filed on October 4, 2010, which duplicates the motion for injunctive relief for pain medication 7 filed on September 16, 2010. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 8 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 10, 2011, is adopted in full; and 11 2. Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief, filed September 16, 2010 (Docs. 12 10, 11), October 4, 2010 (Doc. 22), November 9, 2010 (Doc. 12), and November 29, 13 2010 (Doc. 13), are DENIED. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: b9ed48 June 2, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.