Ahdom v. Lopez et al
Filing
123
ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Plaintiff's Motions For Temporary Restraining Order And Requests For Judicial Notice (ECF Nos. 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 116 , 119 ), signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/30/2014. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
16
) 1:09-cv-01874-AWI-BAM (PC)
)
Plaintiff,
) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
) RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
v.
) PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR
) TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
S. LOPEZ, et al.,
) AND REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
) (ECF Nos. 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 116,
Defendants.
) 119)
)
)
)
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Bilal Ahdom (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
17
pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S. C. § 1983 on October 26, 2009. This
18
action proceeds against Defendants Araich, Chen, Shittu, Ashby, S. Lopez, Spaeth and Schaefer
19
for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
10
11
12
13
14
15
BILAL AHDOM,
20
On May 14, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that
21
Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice be denied and that Plaintiff’s motions for a temporary
22
restraining order be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and
23
contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. On
24
May 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections. (ECF No. 121.) Defendant Ashby filed a reply to the
25
objections on June 5, 2014. (ECF No. 122.) No other objections or responses were filed.
26
Plaintiff first objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation regarding denial of the
27
requests for judicial notice. Plaintiff contends that affidavits are an appropriate source of facts or
28
information in support of a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Although Plaintiff correctly
1
1
notes that affidavits may provide relevant facts and information, the Magistrate Judge did not err
2
in finding that such supporting affidavits are not properly subject to judicial notice. Fed. R.
3
Evid. 201(b). Plaintiff appears to believe that by recommending denial of judicial notice the
4
Magistrate Judge failed to consider Plaintiff’s supporting affidavits. However, the Magistrate
5
Judge expressly indicated that the allegations in Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice would be
6
considered in connection with the motion for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 119, p. 2.)
7
Plaintiff also contends that the Magistrate Judge erred because Plaintiff met the standards
8
for preliminary injunctive relief and demonstrated harassment, obstruction from accessing the
9
courts, denial of his legal papers and resources and denial of medical care. However, the
10
Magistrate Judge correctly determined, and Plaintiff admits, that the persons against whom he
11
seeks injunctive relief are not defendants in this action. (ECF No. 119, p. 3; ECF No. 121, p. 3.)
12
Plaintiff’s assertion that the Magistrate Judge erred by recommending denial of the motions after
13
ordering defendants to respond is unpersuasive. That the Magistrate Judge ordered a response
14
from defendants in this action does not confer jurisdiction over non-parties.
15
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted
16
a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s
17
objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and
18
by proper analysis.
19
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
20
1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 14, 2014, are adopted in full;
21
2. Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice are DENIED; and
22
3. Plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining order are DENIED.
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
Dated: June 30, 2014
26
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
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?