(PC)Evans v. Sherman et al, No. 1:2019cv00226 - Document 43 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 31 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 28 Motion for Preliminary Injunction signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/3/2020. (Rivera, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD A. EVANS, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:19-cv-00226-DAD-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, v. S. SHERMAN, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Defendants. (Doc. No. 28) 17 18 Plaintiff Richard Evans is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 19 civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On February 10, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that he be transferred to San 22 Quentin State Prison because he is allegedly having difficulties accessing the law library 23 resources at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran where he is currently 24 incarcerated and, according to plaintiff, San Quentin State Prison has a law office and no law 25 library limitations. (Doc. No. 28.) On February 13, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued 26 finding and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion, which the magistrate judge 27 construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction, be denied because plaintiff “does not have a 28 constitutional right to be incarcerated at a particular correctional facility (or to be transferred from 1 1 one facility to another).” (Doc. No. 31 at 2.) The pending findings and recommendations were 2 served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 3 fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id. at 3.) On February 27, 2020, plaintiff filed 4 timely objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 35.) 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 6 conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including 7 plaintiff’s objections, the undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendations are 8 supported by the record and proper analysis. 9 In his objections to the pending findings and recommendations, plaintiff merely reiterates 10 the arguments presented in his motion. (Doc. No. 35.) Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections 11 provide no basis upon which to reject the pending findings and recommendations. 12 Accordingly: 13 1. 14 15 16 17 The findings and recommendations issued on February 13, 2020 (Doc. No. 31) are adopted in full; and 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 28) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 3, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.