Cowart v. Rahman et al
Filing
19
ORDER ADOPTING 17 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and ORDER DENYING 16 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/14/2016. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
GARDELL COWART,
10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
RAHMAN, et al.,
13
No. 1:16-CV-00004-AWI-SKO (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING
PLAINTIFF=S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Doc. 16)
Defendants.
14
15
16
Plaintiff, Gardell Cowart, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
17
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The matter was referred to a United States
18
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Plaintiff filed a
19
motion seeking injunctive relief on August 15, 2016. (Doc. 16.) On September 23, 2016, the
20
Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s motion for lack of
21
jurisdiction. (Doc. 17.) The Findings and Recommendation was served that same date and
22
allowed for filing of objections. (Id.)
23
On October 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections in which he argues that he has presented
24
cognizable claims upon which he should be allowed to proceed. (Doc. 18.) As correctly noted in
25
the Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is in line for screening,
26
but it has not been ascertained whether Plaintiff’s claims therein are cognizable, let alone whether
27
he is entitled to the relief he requests. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 845-46 (1994) (citations
28
1
1
and quotations omitted). Further, even after screening, assuming that the First Amended
2
Complaint contains at least one cognizable claim, his request for a temporary restraining
3
order/injunctive relief cannot be adequately addressed until evidence is submitted. Barrett v.
4
Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2008). This is not to say that Plaintiff will not be allowed to
5
proceed on claims stated in the First Amended Complaint; nor is it presumed that he will not
6
prevail thereon. However, at this stage in the litigation, the relief he seeks cannot be granted as it
7
goes to the very merits of his claim(s), which he will be required to prove upon submission of
8
evidence at the appropriate time.
9
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a
10
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the
11
Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
12
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
13
1. The Findings and Recommendations, issued on September 23, 2016 (Doc. 17), is
14
15
16
adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, filed on August 15, 2016 (Doc. 16), is DENIED
without prejudice.
17
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 14, 2016
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?