(PC) Thomas v. Diaz et al, No. 1:2019cv00684 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 11 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/2/2020. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN THOMAS , 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:19-cv-00684-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. No. 2, 11) 17 18 Plaintiff John Thomas 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 May 17, 2019, plaintiff filed his complaint (Doc. No. 1.) and a motion for a temporary 22 restraining order and a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 2), the latter requesting that the court 23 enjoin defendants and all persons acting on their behalf from merging or mixing the Sensitive 24 Needs Yards prisoners with the General Population prisoners at Avenal State Prison. Plaintiff’s 25 complaint has not yet been screened by the assigned magistrate judge. On March 9, 2020, the 26 assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s 27 motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction be denied because: (1) the 28 request for injunctive relief had been rendered moot by plaintiff’s transfer from Avenal State 1 1 Prison; (2) the court lacked jurisdiction over the yet unserved defendants; and (3) plaintiff had 2 failed to demonstrate a threat of irreparable harm to himself. (Doc. No. 11.) The findings and 3 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 4 to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. (Id. at 4–5.) To date, no objections to the 5 findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 7 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and 8 recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 9 10 Accordingly: 1. 11 12 adopted in full; and 2. 13 14 15 The findings and recommendations issued on March 9, 2020 (Doc. No. 11) are Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 2) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 2, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 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.