(PC) Ardds v. Hicks et al, No. 1:2018cv01324 - Document 22 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/10/2018 adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 20 regarding denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 16 . (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTOINE L. ARDDS, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:18-cv-01324-LJO-BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HICKS, et al., (ECF Nos. 16, 20) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Antoine L. Ardds (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction and declaration 21 in support. (ECF Nos. 16, 17.) Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction requiring the 22 “defendants, their successors in office, agents, and employees and all other persons acting in 23 concern and participation with them” to ensure that Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights are 24 protected, including freedom from intimidation, threats, harassment, and using other inmates to 25 carry out assaults against Plaintiff for exercising protected conduct. In addition, Plaintiff 26 requested that the Court order CSP-Corcoran’s hiring authority to arrange for Plaintiff to be 27 afforded the opportunity to exhaust his administrative remedies, and Defendants Hicks, Alcantar, 28 Mcintyre, Baylon, and Sanchez be ordered to keep away from Plaintiff while this civil action 1 1 proceeds. (ECF No. 16, pp. 7–9.) 2 On November 19, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and 3 recommendations recommending denial of the motion. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff timely filed 4 objections on December 7, 2018. (ECF No. 21.) 5 In his objections, Plaintiff argues that an injunction is warranted due to his fears of 6 retaliation for filing this action and other grievances, and in support alleges various examples of 7 past misconduct committed by officers at California State Prison – Corcoran. Plaintiff argues that 8 the injunction is necessary to prevent further harm, as he alleges he has continued to endure 9 retaliation, threats, harassment, and intimidation attempts by Defendants. (Id.) Plaintiff’s objections are unpersuasive. As discussed in the findings and 10 11 recommendations, Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened, and the Court has made no 12 determination that Plaintiff has stated cognizable claims for relief.1 Therefore, Plaintiff has failed 13 to meet the threshold requirement of showing a likelihood of success on the merits. Again, the 14 seriousness of Plaintiff’s allegations regarding his fears of continuing or impending harm or 15 retaliation cannot overcome a jurisdictional bar. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 16 523 U.S. 83, 103–04 (1998). The Court may not issue an order requiring prison officials or any 17 defendant to take any action. No defendant has been ordered served, and no defendant has made 18 an appearance. Thus, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over any staff or officials at California 19 State Prison – Corcoran. 20 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 21 de novo review of the case. None of Plaintiff’s objections provide a legal basis on which to 22 question the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. Having carefully reviewed the 23 entire file, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are 24 supported by the record and by proper analysis. 25 /// 26 1 27 28 The Court notes that on November 16, 2018, Plaintiff was granted leave to file a first amended complaint or to proceed on his original complaint from September 21, 2018. (ECF No. 19.) As the deadline for Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint has not yet expired, there is currently no operative complaint in this matter to be screened. After the deadline passes, the Court will either screen the original complaint or any first amended complaint, in due course. 2 1 2 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 19, 2018, (ECF No. 20), are adopted in full; 4 2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, (ECF No. 16), is denied; and 5 3. The matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings 6 consistent with this order. 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ December 10, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3