Gonzales v. Price et al
Filing
59
ORDER ADOPTING 48 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and ORDER DENYING 38 , 39 , 43 Plaintiff's Motions for Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary Injunctions, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/26/2011. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
MICHAEL GONZALES,
11
12
CASE NO.
Plaintiff,
1:07-cv-01391-AWI-GBC (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS
AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS
v.
13
PRICE, et al.,
14
15
Defendants.
(ECF Numbers 38, 39, 43 & 48)
/
16
17
18
19
ORDER
Plaintiff Michael Gonzales (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
20
This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s original Complaint, filed September 21, 2007
21
22
23
(ECF No. 1), against Defendants Price, Frescura, Vikjoid, Castro, and Pinzon for First
Amendment violations (retaliation and mail interference). (ECF Nos. 12 & 15.)
24
Plaintiff filed motions seeking temporary restraining orders and preliminary
25
injunctions on February 7, 2011, April 13, 2011, and April 29, 2011. (ECF Nos. 38, 39, &
26
43.) In those Motions, Plaintiff alleges other prison officials are placing medication in his
27
1
1
2
3
food as well as excessive force incidents with prison officials (not Defendants).
The matter was referred to a United State Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On July 14, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a
4
5
Findings and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Motions be denied. (ECF
6
No. 48.) The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff failed to meet the legal prerequisites for
7
injunctive relief.1 Plaintiff did not file any objections.
8
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has
9
conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
10
Court finds the Findings and Recommendation to be supported by the record and by
11
12
proper analysis.
13
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
14
1.
The Findings and Recommendation, filed July 14, 2011, is ADOPTED; and
15
2.
Plaintiff’s Motions for Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary
16
17
Injunctions are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
Dated:
0m8i78
August 26, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
“A plaintiff seeking a prelim inary injunction m ust establish that he is likely to succeed on the
m erits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of prelim inary relief, that the balance of
equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Am . Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City
of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting W inter v. Natural Res. Defense Council,
129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008)).
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?