-GGH (PC) Solomon v. Negrete et al, No. 2:2010cv02103 - Document 30 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 6/24/11 ORDERING that Plaintiff no longer engage in the seriatim filing of inadequately supported and inapposite requests for preliminary injunctive relief, particularly while such a request is s till pending; should he continue to do so, this court will disregard such filings. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's defective MOTION for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, filed on 6/21/11 28 be denied. These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb. Within fourteen days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
-GGH (PC) Solomon v. Negrete et al Doc. 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 VINCENTE SOLOMON, 11 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-2103 WBS GGH P vs. J. NEGRETE, et al., ORDER and Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 17 1983. On June 21, 2011 (docket # 26), this court filed an order finding plaintiff’s first amended 18 complaint appropriate for service upon some of the named defendants as to specific claims. In a 19 concurrent filing (docket # 27), the court filed findings and recommendations, recommending 20 dismissal of a number of defendants and claims. In addition, the court recommended dismissal 21 of plaintiff’s second motion for preliminary injunctive relief, which had been filed on June 3, 22 2011. On the same day, June 21, 2011, plaintiff filed yet another putative motion for preliminary 23 injunction, seeking an “emergency transfer,” predicated again on his claim that his life is in 24 danger at CCI. Plaintiff has provided no declaration in support of this latest request and the court 25 will not again set forth the standards that must be met for preliminary injunctive relief of which 26 this most recent filing falls far short. Instead, the undersigned now recommends dismissal of this 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 request for the reasons incorporated in the findings and recommendations already pending and 2 filed on June 21, 2011 (docket # 27). 3 Further, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff no longer engage in the seriatim filing of 4 inadequately supported and inapposite requests for preliminary injunctive relief, particularly 5 while such a request is still pending; should he continue to do so, this court will disregard such 6 filings. 7 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s defective motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on June 21, 2011 (docket # 28), be denied. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 10 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 11 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 12 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 13 “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 14 shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 15 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 16 District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 DATED: June 24, 2011 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 18 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 GGH:009 solo2103.fr2 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.