(PC) Wolinski v. Eldridge et al, No. 2:2019cv02037 - Document 79 (E.D. Cal. 2024)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/27/24 ADOPTING in full 71 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 69 , 70 , 73 , 74 , 75 plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief. This matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Salmeron, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KRZYSZTOF F. WOLINSKI, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. 2:19-cv-02037-DAD-DMC (PC) Plaintiff, v. LAURA ELDRIDGE, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75) Plaintiff Krzysztof F. Wolinski is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 15, 2024 and May 1, 2024, plaintiff filed motions for injunctive relief, 21 specifically requesting a court order directing prison officials at the California Medical Facility to 22 grant plaintiff access to the prison law library as a preferred user under the Americans with 23 Disabilities Act. (Doc. Nos. 69, 70.) On May 15, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued 24 findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief be 25 denied because plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements to obtain injunctive relief, specifically 26 that plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm absent 27 the requested injunctive relief. (Doc. No. 71.) Moreover, in the findings and recommendations, 28 the magistrate judge explained that “[t]o the extent plaintiff requires additional time due to 1 1 limited law library access, the court will entertain [a] request for additional time for good cause 2 shown.” (Id. at 2.) 3 The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice 4 that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3.) To 5 date, plaintiff has not filed any objections and the time in which to do so has passed. Instead, 6 plaintiff filed three additional motions for injunctive relief seeking a court order directing the 7 prison law librarian to provide plaintiff access to ADA computers enabled with certain software 8 programs. (Doc. Nos. 73, 74, 75.) In those motions, however, plaintiff has likewise not 9 demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm absent the requested 10 injunctive relief, and thus plaintiff’s additional motions for injunctive relief will be denied for the 11 same reasons. Notably, plaintiff did not address the requirements for obtaining injunctive relief, 12 even though the court has consistently denied plaintiff’s multiple requests for injunctive relief 13 throughout this litigation due to his failure to satisfy those requirements. 14 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 15 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 16 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 17 Accordingly, 18 1. 19 adopted in full; 20 2. 21 Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (Doc. Nos. 69, 70, 73, 74, 75) are denied; and 22 3. 23 This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 24 25 The findings and recommendations issued on May 15, 2024 (Doc. No. 71) are IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 27, 2024 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.