(PC) Mendez v. Diaz et al, No. 1:2019cv01759 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations ; ORDER DENYING 3 Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction; The matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 04/15/2020. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANKIE MENDEZ, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 3, 13) v. DIAZ, et al., 15 No. 1:19-cv-01759-NONE-BAM (PC) 16 Plaintiff Frankie Mendez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 17 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 10, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 20 21 recommending denial of plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary 22 injunction because the conduct which plaintiff sought to enjoin took place at a plaintiff’s prior 23 place of incarceration and plaintiff had not demonstrated that he had a reasonable expectation of 24 returning to that prison. (Doc. No. 13.) The findings and recommendations were served on 25 plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) 26 days after service. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff has not filed objections, and the deadline to do so has 27 expired. 28 ///// 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 3 Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 4 analysis. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 10, 2020, (Doc. No. 13), are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, (Doc. No. 3), is denied; and 3. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 15, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 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.