Foster v. Enenmoh et al

Filing 67

ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 62 , and Denying Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunction 47 66 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/1/12. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

MICHAEL LOUIS FOSTER,

10

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01849-LJO-SKO PC

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

A. ENENMOH,
(Docs. 47, 62, and 66)

13

Defendant.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Michael Louis Foster, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

16

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 3, 2008. The matter was referred

17

to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

18

On April 16, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations

19

recommending denial of Plaintiff’s motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief in the form of

20

Metamucil and dietary supplementation, filed on December 29, 2011. The parties were provided

21

thirty days within which to file objections and none were filed.

22

In addition, on May 31, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction

23

prohibiting Defendant’s use of Plaintiff’s prison and medical records, which he argues will prejudice

24

him at trial. Plaintiff is not entitled to a preliminary injunction enjoining the use of his prison

25

records at trial.1 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493,

26
27
28

1
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo and the rights of the parties until a
final judgment issues. U.S. Phillips Corp. v. KBC Bank N.V., 590 F.3d 1091, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks
and citation omitted). A preliminary injunction is not available to address evidentiary and other procedural issues
which arise during the course of the litigation.

1

1

129 S.Ct. 1142 (2009); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130

2

(1992); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). Therefore, his motion is

3

denied.2 Plaintiff is not precluded from filing a motion in limine once this matter is set for trial, as

4

that is the proper procedural mechanism to seek preclusion of documents or other evidence at trial.

5

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case.

6

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be

7

supported by the record and by proper analysis.

8

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1.

The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations filed on April 16, 2012, in full;

10

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed on December 29, 2011, is

11

DENIED; and

12

3.

13

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed on May 31, 2012, is DENIED,
without prejudice to renewal as a motion in limine once this matter is set for trial.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated:
b9ed48

June 1, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Given that the relief Plaintiff seeks cannot be awarded via a preliminary injunction and there is no
prejudice to Defendant, the Court elects to resolve the motion without awaiting a response from Defendant. Local
Rule 230(l).

2