Gann v. Kokor et al

Filing 20

ORDER DENYING 12 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; ORDER ADOPTING 18 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS;The matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 06/22/18. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

NATHANIEL MARCUS GANN,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

Case No. 1:18-cv-00084-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DENIAL OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

KOKOR, et al.,

14

(ECF No. 18)
Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff Nathaniel Marcus Gann (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

17

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action

18

in Kings County Superior Court on August 16, 2017, and it was removed to this court by

19

Defendants on January 16, 2018. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

20

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

On February 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for an injunction to prevent Defendants

22

from searching through Plaintiff’s central file until discovery is opened in this action. (ECF No.

23

12.) On May 11, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations

24

recommending denial of the motion. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff timely filed objections on May 30,

25

2018. (ECF No. 19.)

26

In his objections, Plaintiff argues that his medical records should remain as confidential as

27

if he were any other citizen bringing a complaint, citing HIPAA. He also states his belief that

28

information is being placed into his records without his knowledge, which is somehow interfering
1

1

with his ongoing medical care. Plaintiff further argues that he does not believe there is a

2

legitimate penological interest in accessing his central file or health records, merely a litigation

3

interest. Finally, Plaintiff believes that Defendants believe in the merits of his claims, or they

4

would have asked for summary judgment when this action was before the state court. (Id.)

5

Plaintiff’s objections are unpersuasive. As discussed in the findings and

6

recommendations, Plaintiff has placed his own medical care at issue by bringing this lawsuit,

7

thereby waiving any right to privacy he may otherwise have maintained. Furthermore, as a

8

prisoner, Plaintiff’s privacy expectations are not the same as any other citizen bringing a

9

complaint. Seaton v. Mayberg, 610 F.3d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 2010).

10

Additionally, Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened, and the Court has made no

11

determination that Plaintiff has stated cognizable claims for relief. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed

12

to meet the threshold requirement of showing a likelihood of success on the merits.

13

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

14

de novo review of the case. None of Plaintiff’s objections provide a legal basis on which to

15

question the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. Having carefully reviewed the

16

entire file, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are

17

supported by the record and by proper analysis.

18
19
20

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 11, 2018, (ECF No. 18), are adopted in
full;

21

2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, (ECF No. 12), is denied; and

22

3. The matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings

23

consistent with this order.

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 22, 2018
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2