(PC) Johnson v. Trinh, et al., No. 1:2023cv00241 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 10 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Plaintiff's 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order; ORDER ADOPTING 20 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Plaintiff's 17 Motion for Court Order signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/5/2023. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PHILLIP JOSEPH JOHNSON, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff, v. TRINH, et al., No. 1:23-cv-0241 JLT BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (Docs. 3, 10) Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COURT ORDER (Docs. 17, 20) 19 Phillip Joseph Johnson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 20 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened. 21 On February 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary 22 restraining order preventing his transfer between CDCR institutions and mental health level of 23 care. (Doc. 3 at 4-5.) On February 21, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and 24 Recommendations, recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and 25 temporary restraining order be denied. (Doc. 10.) The Findings and Recommendations were 26 served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within 14. (Id. at 4.) 27 Following an extension of time, Plaintiff’s objections were due on or before April 11, 2023. 28 (Docs. 14, 19.) However, Plaintiff did not file objections, and the deadline to do so has expired. 1 1 On March 13, 2023, while the Findings and Recommendations were pending, Plaintiff 2 filed a motion for a court order, which the Court construed as a motion for preliminary injunction 3 regarding production of Plaintiff’s property and access to the prison law library following his 4 transfer to a new institution. (Docs. 17, 20.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff made “no 5 showing that he will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, that the balance of 6 equities tips in his favor, or that an injunction is in the public interest.” (Doc. 20 at 3.) Thus, the 7 magistrate judge recommended the motion be denied. (Id.) The Court served the Findings and 8 Recommendations on Plaintiff on March 15, 2023, and the Court informed him that any 9 objections were due within 14 days. (Id. at 14) Plaintiff again did not file any objections and the 10 11 second deadline has also expired. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of the 12 case. Having carefully reviewed the entire action, the Court concludes the Findings and 13 Recommendations issued on February 21, 2023 (Doc. 10) and March 15, 2023 (Doc. 20) are 14 supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 15 1. 16 17 The Findings and Recommendations issued on February 21, 2023 (Doc. 10) and March 15, 2023 (Doc. 20) are ADOPTED in full. 2. 18 Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, (Doc. 3) is DENIED without prejudice. 19 3. Plaintiff’s motion for court order (Doc. 17) is DENIED without prejudice. 20 4. The matter is referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 5, 2023 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.