(PC) Hammler v. The State of California et al, No. 1:2019cv00785 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 19 Findings and Recommendations DENYING 12 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/8/2021. (Rivera, O)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLEN HAMMLER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:19-cv-00785-NONE-HBK (PC) v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 12, 19) 16 Plaintiff Allen Hamler (“Hammler”) is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed 17 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 On October 10, 2019, Hammler moved for a preliminary injunction requesting prison 20 21 officials cease physically assaulting him. (Doc. No. 12). The assigned magistrate judge reviewed 22 Hammler’s motion and determined Hammler had not established the elements necessary to obtain 23 injunctive relief. (Doc. No. 19). Specifically, the magistrate judge found Hammler had not 24 identified “whom he is seeking to enjoin, failed to demonstrate “a likelihood of success on the 25 merits” of his claim and did not “explain either how the relief he seeks would remedy the alleged 26 harms or whether it is narrowly drawn to be the least intrusive means, as required by the PLRA.” 27 (Id. at 3). 28 ///// 1 1 The magistrate judge accordingly issued findings and recommendations on November 3, 2 2020, recommending Asberry’s motions be denied. (Doc. No. 19.) Those pending findings and 3 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 4 to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) To date, no objections to the findings and 5 recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.1 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 7 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 8 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 9 Accordingly, 10 1. 11 The findings and recommendations issued on November 3, 2020 (Doc No. 19) are adopted in full; and 12 2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 12) is DENIED. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 15 March 8, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff Hammler did file several other untimely, unrelated motions that did not address or object to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. Nos. 22-25). 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.
