(PC) Foster v. Baker, et al, No. 1:2018cv01511 - Document 32 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 21 Findings and Recommendations and ORDER DENYING 20 Plaintiff's Request for Injunctive Relief signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/7/2020. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICKY TYRONE FOSTER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 C. BAKER, et al., 15 No. 1:18-cv-01511-DAD-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 20, 21) 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff Ricky Tyrone Foster is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 20 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On February 18, 2020, plaintiff filed a declaration in which he contends that he is being 23 subjected to retaliation “by Corcoran officials for filing and pursuing both prison grievances and 24 section 1983’s against Corcoran officials.” (Doc. No. 20 at 2.) In his declaration, plaintiff 25 requests that the court order prison officials to “cease and desist any and all forms of retaliations 26 against plaintiff,” “issue plaintiff a loaner office typewriter for plaintiff to continue with his 27 litigations,” and purchase a new typewriter at the state’s expense for the prison’s law library and 28 grant him access to use it. (Id. at 4–5.) 1 1 On February 20, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 2 recommendations, construing plaintiff’s declaration as a request for preliminary injunctive relief 3 and recommending that plaintiff’s request be denied because: (1) the preliminary injunctive relief 4 that plaintiff seeks is not of the same character as the relief he seeks in his operative complaint; 5 (2) the court lacks jurisdiction over individuals who are not parties to this action; (3) there is no 6 constitutional right to access a typewriter; and (4) plaintiff has not shown that any limitations in 7 his access to a typewriter or the law library has impeded his access to the courts. (Doc. No. 21 at 8 2–3.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice 9 that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 4.) To 10 date, no objections to the pending findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in 11 which to do so has now passed. 12 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 13 court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 14 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 15 Accordingly, 16 1. 17 18 adopted in full; and 2. 19 20 21 The findings and recommendations issued on February 20, 2020 (Doc. No. 21) are Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief filed on February 18, 2020 (Doc. No. 20) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 7, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
