(PC) Fregia v. Miranda et al, No. 1:2021cv01068 - Document 105 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 92 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Plaintiff's 90 Motion for Emergency Injunction signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 05/24/2023. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK FREGIA, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 No. 1:21-cv-01068 JLT BAM (PC) v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION MIRANDA, et al., (Doc. 90) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Mark Fregia asserts that Defendants Ridge and Savage demonstrated deliberate indifferent 18 to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs by continuing to prescribe medications that caused him to 19 suffer lichen planus and then failed to treat such skin condition. 20 Plaintiff next filed a notice to the Court regarding his property. (Doc. 89.) Afterwards, he 21 filed a request for emergency injunction and stay of further proceedings (Doc. 90), and then he 22 filed a motion for Ridge to be directed to obtain his own counsel (Doc. 91). 23 The assigned magistrate judge issued an order finding no merit to Plaintiff’s argument that 24 the Attorney General’s representation of Ridge created a conflict of interest and denied Plaintiff’s 25 motion to stay the proceedings in this action. (Doc. 92.) The magistrate judge also issued 26 Findings and Recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. (Id.) The 27 deadline for Plaintiff to file any objections to the Findings and Recommendations was extended 28 during the pendency of an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (Docs. 93, 97, 98.) Following dismissal of 1 1 the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, the magistrate judge reset the deadline for Plaintiff’s to file any 2 objections. (Docs. 99, 100.) 3 Plaintiff timely filed objections. (Doc. 104.) Plaintiff reiterates many of his arguments 4 regarding the alleged conflict of interest presented by the Attorney General’s Office 5 representation of Ridge, as well as his disagreement with the finding that Plaintiff’s loss of legal 6 property does not require stay of this action. (Id.) Significantly, however, Plaintiff does not 7 contest the finding that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the prison officials who might carry out 8 the requested relief. Plaintiff also does not establish that he will suffer irreparable harm in the 9 absence of such relief. Thus, Plaintiff fails to show the requested injunctive relief should be 10 granted. Plaintiff’s remaining arguments—which relate to the other motions addressed by the 11 magistrate judge— are not relevant to the Court’s review of the instant motion. 12 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of the 13 case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court 14 concludes that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 15 analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 16 1. 17 The Findings and Recommendations issued on March 8, 2023 (Doc. 92), are ADOPTED in full. 18 2. Plaintiff’s motion for emergency injunction (Doc. 90) is DENIED. 19 3. The matter is referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 24, 2023 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.
