(PC) Lipsey v. Medina, et al., No. 1:2017cv01705 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 11 Findings and Recommendations to Deny Request for Preliminary Injunctive Relief 9 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/23/18. (Gonzalez, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR., 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 MEDINA, et al., 14 1:17-cv-01705-LJO-MJS (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (ECF No. 11) Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 17 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On February 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. (ECF 20 No. 9.) Plaintiff moves the Court to direct the California Department of Corrections and 21 Rehabilitation (“CDCR”): (1) To provide Plaintiff and all other prisoners with their property 22 upon arrival during a transfer; (2) To not retaliate against Plaintiff for seeking the 23 injunction; (3) To use cameras to record property transfers; and (4) To photograph 24 prisoners with their property when they receive it following transfer. (Id. at 8.) Because 25 the matter has yet to be screened and Defendants have not been served, no opposition 26 was filed. 27 On February 15, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 28 to deny the motion. (ECF No. 11.) The Magistrate Judge reasoned that Plaintiff has not 1 1 shown a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, a balance of the equities 2 in his favor, or that an injunction is in the public interest. (Id.) Plaintiff was given fourteen 3 days to file objections. (Id.) On March 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed objections. (ECF No. 13.) 4 Plaintiff’s objections reiterate the arguments in the original motion and he sets forth no 5 new arguments or facts. (Id.) 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 7 the Court has conducted a de novo review of Plaintiff’s request. The Court finds the 8 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 9 Plaintiff has made no showing that he is entitled to injunctive relief at this time. The Court 10 will deny his request, albeit without prejudice. If new circumstances arise in the future 11 that warrant consideration, Plaintiff may renew his request at that time. 12 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. The findings and recommendations filed on February 15, 2018 (ECF No. 14 11) are adopted in full; and 2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 9) is DENIED without 15 16 prejudice. 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ March 23, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
