(PC) Shikeb Saddozai v. Hosey et al, No. 1:2019cv01611 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to deny 3 Motion for TRO signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 4/29/2020. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd; Objections to F&R due within 30-Days. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 K. HOSEY, et al., 15 Case No. 1:19-cv-01611-DAD-JDP SHIKEB SADDOZAI, ECF No. 3 OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS Defendants. ORDER REQUESTING ASSISTANCE OF CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, CORCORAN LITIGATION COORDINATOR 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order, ECF No. 3, is before 20 the court. Plaintiff alleges that he has repeatedly been denied access to the law library and seeks 21 an order requiring defendants to provide him access to law library services. See ECF No. 3. 22 The legal standard for issuing either a temporary restraining order or preliminary 23 injunction is the same. See Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 24 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). A plaintiff seeking such extraordinary relief must establish that he 25 is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 26 such relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public 27 interest. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). At this early stage in 28 1 1 the case, plaintiff has not shown that any of these factors point in his favor. The court will 2 therefore recommend that plaintiff’s request be denied. Nevertheless, the court recognizes that plaintiff’s ability to access the law library may 3 4 impact his ability to litigate this action in a timely and effective manner. Accordingly, the court 5 will request the assistance of the Litigation Coordinator at California State Prison, Corcoran in 6 ensuring that plaintiff is afforded adequate opportunities to access the law library, to the extent 7 that doing so is consistent with institutional order and security. See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 8 312, 321-322 (1986) (“Prison administrators . . . should be accorded wide-ranging deference in 9 the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve 10 internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.” (internal quotation omitted)). 11 The clerk’s office will be directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation Coordinator. 12 Order 13 Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that 14 1. The clerk’s office shall serve a copy of this document on the Litigation Coordinator at 15 California State Prison, Corcoran. 16 2. The Litigation Coordinator’s assistance is requested in facilitating plaintiff’s 17 meaningful access to the law library, to the extent doing so is consistent with 18 institutional order and security. 19 20 21 22 Findings and Recommendations Further, it is hereby recommended that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, ECF No. 3, be denied without prejudice. These findings and recommendations will be submitted to a U.S. district judge presiding 23 over the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within 30 days of the service 24 of the findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections to the findings and 25 recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document must be 26 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The presiding 27 district judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 28 2 1 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: April 29, 2020 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 No. 204. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.