(PC) Hudkins v. Clark, et al., No. 1:2021cv01473 - Document 29 (E.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 28 Findings and Recommendations in Full and DENYING Plaintiff's 2 Motion for Injunctive Relief signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 05/27/2022.(Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIMOTHY D. HUDKINS, Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 K. CLARK, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-01473 JLT GSA (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Docs. 2, 28) Timothy D. Hudkins is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights case under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests the Court order officials at Corcoran State Prison to protect him from 19 abuse, retaliation, physical violence, property abuse, “obstruction of access to the courts,” and 20 destruction of legal documents. (See Doc. 2.) 21 On April 26, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge found the motion for preliminary injunctive 22 relief was premature. (Doc. 28 at 2.) The magistrate judge noted Plaintiff was “not entitled to 23 preliminary injunctive relief until such time as the court finds that his complaint contains cognizable 24 claims for relief against the named defendants and the named defendants have been served with the 25 summons and complaint.” (Id., emphasis in original.) Because the defendants have not received 26 service, the magistrate judge found the Court lacks jurisdiction over the defendants at this time. (Id., 27 at 2-3, citing Zepeda v. U.S. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985).) 28 Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the request for injunctive relief be denied. (Id. at 3.) 1 1 The Court granted Plaintiff 14 days to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations. 2 (Doc. 28 at 3.) In addition, the Court informed Plaintiff that the “failure to file objections within the 3 specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 4 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).). 5 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the Court conducted a de novo 6 review of this action. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the Findings and 7 Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 8 1. (Doc. 28), are adopted in full. 9 10 The Findings and Recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on April 26, 2022 2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 2) is denied. 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 27, 2022 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.
