Gonzalez v. Razo et al

Filing 25

ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 23 and Denying Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction and an Investigator 3 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/7/16. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MANUEL ANTONIO GONZALEZ III,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

J. RAZO, et al.,

15
16
17

No. 1:15-cv-01098-DAD-SKO (PC)

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
AND AN INVESTIGATOR
(Docs. No. 3, 23)

18
19

Plaintiff Manuel Antonio Gonzalez III is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

20

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. With his complaint plaintiff filed a motion

21

for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction seeking an order prohibiting

22

certain prison staff members from coming within two-hundred feet of him. Plaintiff also moved

23

for the appointment of an investigator to meet with him every thirty days during the pendency of

24

this action. On December 29, 2015, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending

25

that plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, as well as his

26

motion for appointment of an investigator, be denied. (Doc. No. 23.) Plaintiff was provided an

27

opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within thirty days. No

28

objections to the findings and recommendations were filed.
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the

2

undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

3

file, the court adopts the recommendation that plaintiff’s motions be denied.

4

Plaintiff requests a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunctive relief to be

5

issued against all defendants because in June 2015, prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, one of

6

the named defendants (defendant Brennan) allegedly threatened him with harm for pursuing this

7

litigation. (Doc. No. 3, at 6.) “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he

8

is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

9

preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the

10

public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). A

11

preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter, 555 U.S.

12

at 24. Here, even assuming the court could grant the preliminary relief sought, plaintiff has not

13

made a sufficient showing of the likelihood of irreparable harm or of the likelihood of success on

14

the merits to warrant the granting of preliminary relief.1 Therefore, the court adopts the

15

recommendation that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary

16

objection be denied.

17

The undersigned also adopts the analysis and conclusion set forth in the findings and

18

recommendations concerning plaintiff’s request to be appointed an investigator. Accordingly,

19

plaintiff’s motion for appointment of an expert will be denied.

20

For the reasons set forth above:

21

1. The court adopts the recommendation of the findings and recommendations (Doc. No.

22

23), as discussed above; and

23

/////

24

/////

25

/////

26

1

27
28

The analysis in the findings and recommendations which focused on plaintiff’s purported lack
of standing to seek injunctive relief generally in this case is not adopted. Since plaintiff has not
sought general injunctive relief for the harm alleged in his underlying complaint, the undersigned
finds it unnecessary to address plaintiff’s standing to seek such relief.
2

2. Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction to be

1
2

appointed an investigator (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated:

March 7, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3