(PC) Duncan v. California Healthcare Receivership Corp. et al, No. 1:2020cv01288 - Document 45 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 43 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 28 , 30 Plaintiff's Fourth and Fifth Motions for a Temporary Restraining Order, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/20/2021. (Maldonado, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 DIONTAE JOHAN DUNCAN, 7 8 9 10 11 CASE NO. 1:20-cv-01288-AWI-SKO (PC) Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE RECEIVERSHIP CORP., et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH AND FIFTH MOTIONS FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 28, 30 & 43) 12 13 Plaintiff Diontae Johan Duncan is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 14 in this civil rights action. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 15 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302. 16 On December 3, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 17 recommendations, recommending that Plaintiff’s fourth and fifth motions for temporary a 18 restraining order (Doc. Nos. 28 & 30) be denied. Doc. No. 43. The magistrate judge found that 19 “Plaintiff’s requests to be released from administrative segregation at Kern Valley State Prison 20 [KVSP] were . . . mooted when he transferred to [Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State 21 Prison, Corcoran].” Id. at 2. The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and 22 provided him twenty-one days to file objections thereto. Id. Plaintiff filed objections on 23 December 16, 2021. Doc. No. 44. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 25 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that 26 the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. In his 27 objections, Plaintiff raises a number of claims unrelated to those raised in his motions for a 28 1 temporary restraining order. Compare Doc. Nos. 28 & 30, with Doc. No. 44. However, Plaintiff 2 does not meaningfully dispute that the requests for relief he makes in his motions—to be released 3 from administrative segregation at KVSP—were mooted when he transferred to a different prison. 4 5 ORDER 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. 8 9 10 The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 43) that were issued on December 3, 2021, are ADOPTED in full; and 2. Plaintiff’s fourth and fifth motions for a temporary restraining order (Doc. Nos. 28 & 30) are DENIED. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: December 20, 2021 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 14 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.