Cowart v. Rahman et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RAHMAN, et al.,
No. 1:16-CV-00004-AWI-SKO (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
PLAINTIFF=S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiff, Gardell Cowart, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The matter was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Plaintiff filed a
motion seeking injunctive relief on August 15, 2016. (Doc. 16.) On September 23, 2016, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s motion for lack of
jurisdiction. (Doc. 17.) The Findings and Recommendation was served that same date and
allowed for filing of objections. (Id.)
On October 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections in which he argues that he has presented
cognizable claims upon which he should be allowed to proceed. (Doc. 18.) As correctly noted in
the Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is in line for screening,
but it has not been ascertained whether Plaintiff’s claims therein are cognizable, let alone whether
he is entitled to the relief he requests. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 845-46 (1994) (citations
and quotations omitted). Further, even after screening, assuming that the First Amended
Complaint contains at least one cognizable claim, his request for a temporary restraining
order/injunctive relief cannot be adequately addressed until evidence is submitted. Barrett v.
Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2008). This is not to say that Plaintiff will not be allowed to
proceed on claims stated in the First Amended Complaint; nor is it presumed that he will not
prevail thereon. However, at this stage in the litigation, the relief he seeks cannot be granted as it
goes to the very merits of his claim(s), which he will be required to prove upon submission of
evidence at the appropriate time.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the
Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations, issued on September 23, 2016 (Doc. 17), is
adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, filed on August 15, 2016 (Doc. 16), is DENIED
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 14, 2016
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
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?