(PC) Velasquez v. Diaz et al, No. 1:2019cv00683 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations and ORDER DENYING 2 Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/30/2020. (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 JORGE VELASQUEZ, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:19-cv-00683-DAD-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, v. RALPH DIAZ, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Doc. Nos. 2, 13) 17 18 19 Plaintiff Jorge Velasquez is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 20 pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 21 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on May 17, 2019 (Doc. No. 1), has not yet been screened by 23 the assigned magistrate judge. However, on May 20, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for a 24 temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, requesting that the court enjoin 25 defendants and all persons acting on their behalf from merging or mixing the Sensitive Needs 26 Yards prisoners with the General Population prisoners at Avenal State Prison. (Doc. No. 2.) On 27 March 9, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 28 recommending that plaintiff’s motion be denied because: (1) the request for injunctive relief had 1 1 been rendered moot by plaintiff’s transfer from Avenal State Prison; (2) the court lacked 2 jurisdiction over the yet unserved defendants; and (3) plaintiff had failed to demonstrate a threat 3 of irreparable harm to himself. (Doc. No. 13.) The findings and recommendations were served 4 on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) 5 days of service. (Id. at 4.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been 6 filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 8 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and 9 recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 10 Accordingly: 11 1. 12 13 adopted in full; and 2. 14 15 16 The findings and recommendations issued on March 9, 2020 (Doc. No. 13) are Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 2) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 30, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 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.
