Consiglio v. Brown et al
ORDER ADOPTING 7 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Request for Preliminary Injunction signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/25/2017. (Jessen, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAM CONSIGLIO, JR.,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
Case No. 1:16-cv-01268-AWI-SAB (PC)
EDMUND G. BROWN, et al.,
(ECF Nos. 1, 7)
Plaintiff Sam Consiglio, Jr. is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States
19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed his complaint in this action. In his complaint, Plaintiff
21 requested a preliminary injunction to prevent the officials at the institution where he is being
22 civilly detained from enforcing a ban pursuant to 9 C.C.R. § 891 (“Section 891”) (which
23 prohibits non-LPS patients, such as sexually violent predators, from having any access to the
24 internet) and 9 C.C.R. § 4350 (“Section 4350”) (which prohibits all patients in the custody of
25 state hospitals from possessing any electronic devices with wireless capabilities, including but
26 not limited to cell phones, computers, PDAs, electronic gaming devices, and graphing calculators
27 with internet capabilities) during the pendency of this action.
On April 10, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a screening order finding that
2 Plaintiff’s complaint stated cognizable claims based on allegations that Sections 891 and 4350
3 amount to punishment under the Fourteenth Amendment, and granting him leave to amend his
4 other allegations. (ECF No. 8.) The Magistrate Judge also issued findings and recommendations
5 to deny Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction, finding that although Plaintiff alleged
6 enough facts to plead a claim, he has not shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his
7 claim, that he is in immediate need of the relief he seeks, or that he is under a significant threat of
8 irreparable harm without a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 7.) Further, he did not demonstrate
9 that the balance of equities tips in his favor, or that an injunction is in the public interest. (Id. at
10 2.) Plaintiff was directed to file his objections to those findings and recommendations within
11 fourteen days. That deadline has passed, and no objections have been filed.1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the
13 Court has conducted a de novo review of Plaintiff’s request. The Court finds the findings and
14 recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
The findings and recommendations filed on April 10, 2017 (ECF No. 7) are
17 ADOPTED in full; and
Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 1) is DENIED, without
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22 Dated: May 25, 2017
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff was also directed to notify the Court whether he intended to proceed on his cognizable claims
27 or to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff has since notified the Court in writing that he
elects to proceed only on the claims found cognizable. (ECF No. 9.) Separate findings and
28 recommendations from the Magistrate Judge are pending regarding that matter. (ECF No. 10.)
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?