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)

Download PDF
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?