-GBC (PC) Christ v. Hartley, No. 1:2011cv00705 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Denying Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Injunctive Relief signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/12/2011. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
-GBC (PC) Christ v. Hartley Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JON CHRIST, 11 12 13 14 CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00705-AWI-GBC (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Defendant. (ECF No. 12) v. JAMES HARTLEY, / 15 16 ORDER 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Plaintiff Jon Christ (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Complaint, which has not yet been screened by this Court. (ECF No. 1.) On May 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 9.) In that Motion, Plaintiff stated that, on April 15, 2011, he was informed by prison staff 24 25 26 that all electronic appliances were going to be taken from inmates. Plaintiff requested an injunction to stop that from happening. 27 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 2, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary 4 5 6 Injunction be denied. (ECF No. 12.) The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff failed to meet the legal prerequisites for injunctive relief.1 No objections were filed. 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has 8 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 9 Court finds the Findings and Recommendation to be supported by the record and by 10 proper analysis. 11 12 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. and 14 15 16 The Findings and Recommendation, filed September 2, 2011, is ADOPTED; 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: 0m8i78 October 12, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 “A plaintiff seeking a prelim inary injunction m ust establish that he is likely to succeed on the m erits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of prelim inary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Am . Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting W inter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008)). 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.