(PC) Windham v. California Medical Facility, et al, No. 2:2015cv01058 - Document 65 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 05/25/17 recommending that plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief 51 be denied. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 51 referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMUEL WINDHAM, JR., 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-1058 MCE CKD P v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil action. Plaintiff has filed a 17 18 motion for preliminary injunctive relief concerning his current medical care at the California 19 Health Care Facility in Stockton. However, the two remaining defendants in this action, 20 defendants Sabin and Yun, were medical professionals at the California Medical Facility (CMF) 21 in Vacaville during all times relevant to the allegations in plaintiff’s operative first amended 22 complaint. Also, plaintiff does not seek injunctive relief in his first amended complaint, only 23 damages against Sabin and Yun concerning past care for plaintiff at CMF. In light of the 24 foregoing, the court will recommend that plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief be 25 denied. Plaintiff has the option of initiating a separate civil action if he wishes to challenge his 26 current conditions of confinement at the California Health Care Facility. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 1 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief (ECF No. 51) be denied. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 5 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 6 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 7 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 8 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 9 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 10 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 Dated: May 25, 2017 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 wind1058.msj 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.