(PC) Jackson v. Quick et al, No. 1:2019cv01591 - Document 86 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 77 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 33 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and a Temporary Restraining Order signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/20/2021. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
(PC) Jackson v. Quick et al Doc. 86 Case 1:19-cv-01591-NONE-EPG Document 86 Filed 07/20/21 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CORNEL JACKSON, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:19-cv-01591-NONE-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS JASON QUICK, et al., (Doc. Nos. 33, 77) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Cornell Jackson is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 2, 2020, plaintiff filed an “order to show cause for an (sic) preliminary 21 injunction and a temporary restraining order,” concerning the alleged denial of legal services— 22 specifically his inability to obtain legal documents based on his inability to pay for copies. (Doc. 23 No. 33.) On February 22, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 24 recommendations construing plaintiff’s filing as a motion for preliminary injunction and a 25 temporary restraining order and recommending that the motion be denied as moot, noting that it 26 appeared that plaintiff had sufficient funds to pay for the legal services he sought. (Doc. No. 53.) 27 After plaintiff filed objections asserting that he again lacked the funds to pay for legal services 28 (Doc No. 54), the court permitted the parties to file further briefing concerning the status of 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:19-cv-01591-NONE-EPG Document 86 Filed 07/20/21 Page 2 of 2 1 plaintiff’s funds. (Doc. No. 55). 2 On June 4, 2021, after the parties completed further briefing, the magistrate judge issued 3 an order vacating its prior findings and recommendations and issuing new findings and 4 recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s motion be denied. (Doc. No. 77.) Plaintiff filed 5 objections on June 24, 2021. (Doc. No. 80.) However, this filing does not substantively respond 6 to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations but simply states that plaintiff’s filing is 7 being made to “prevent waiver of appeal.” (Id. at 2.) 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 9 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 10 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 11 analysis. Most pertinently, the court agrees with the magistrate judge that plaintiff has failed to 12 show that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the granting of the requested 13 preliminary relief. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his fluctuating trust fund account has 14 impeded his ability to obtain necessary copies or impeded his access to the courts in any material 15 way. 16 Accordingly, 17 1. 18 19 adopted in full; and 2. 20 21 22 23 The findings and recommendations entered on June 4, 2021 (Doc. No. 77) are Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 33) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 20, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.