(PC) Florence v. Kernan et al, No. 1:2019cv00331 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 20 Findings and Recommendations and ORDER DENYING 11 , 15 , 16 Plaintiff's Motions for a Preliminary Injunction signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/15/2020. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID FLORENCE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 KERNAN, et al., 15 No. 1:19-cv-00331-NONE-BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Doc. Nos. 11, 15, 16, 20) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff David Florence is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 10, 2020, the assigned magistrate iudge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction be denied. (Doc. No. 20.) 22 The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any 23 objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff 24 filed objections on March 30, 2020. (Doc. No. 22.) 25 Plaintiff’s objections primarily relate to the merits of this action, namely, plaintiff’s 26 contention that the challenged policy of creating Non-Designated Programming Facility 27 (“NDPF”) yards was improper under California laws and regulations, as well as the 28 Administrative Procedure Act. (Id.) However, plaintiff fails to address the magistrate judge’s 1 1 findings that his motions failed to establish that plaintiff is entitled to the injunctive relief he 2 seeks. Among other things, plaintiff’s objections appear to confirm that he is no longer housed at 3 a facility that has implemented the NDPF policy, which would make his request for injunctive 4 relief moot. 5 In addition, plaintiff does not challenge the magistrate judge’s finding that the court at this 6 time lacks personal jurisdiction over any of the defendants or any other CDCR officials that he 7 seeks to enjoin. Similarly, to the extent plaintiff alleges that he has been harmed by 8 implementation of the NDPF policy due to disciplinary actions taken against him, the exhibits 9 attached to his objections show only a single disciplinary action, in which plaintiff intentionally 10 acquired contraband and placed it in his own cell so he would be caught with it, in an effort to 11 avoid being sent to a Non-Designated facility. (Id. at 22–23.) As such, the only harm that has 12 been suffered to date, as related to the challenged policy, appears to be intentionally self-inflicted 13 by plaintiff. 14 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 15 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 16 objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 17 record and by proper analysis. 18 19 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 10, 2020, (Doc. No. 20), are adopted in full; 21 2. Plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction, (Doc. Nos. 11, 15, 16), are denied; and 22 3. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings 23 24 25 26 consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 15, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.