(PC) Saddozai v. Ceballos et al

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING 11 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 8 9 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/2/2020. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHIKEB SADDOZAI,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
J. CEBALLOS, et al.,

15

No. 1:20-cv-00358-NONE-JLT (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(Doc. Nos. 8-9, 11)

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Shikeb Saddozai is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

18

this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United

19

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

20

On May 19, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,

21

recommending that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. Nos. 8-9) be denied.

22

(Doc. No. 11.) The magistrate judge found that plaintiff failed to show that he is likely succeed

23

on the merits of his claims or that he will suffer irreparable harm if the court denies his requested

24

preliminary relief. (Id. at 2-3). The magistrate judge also found that plaintiff’s requested

25

injunction is unrelated to the claims asserted in his complaint pending before this court. (Id. at 3.)

26

The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and provided him fourteen (14) days

27

to file objections thereto. (Id. at 3.)

28

/////

1

Plaintiff filed timely objections on May 28, 2020. (Doc. No. 14.) In those objections,

2

plaintiff raises claims against the prison law library supervisor, M. Lirones. Plaintiff alleges that

3

Lirones has engaged in retaliatory conduct against plaintiff because plaintiff filed an inmate

4

grievance regarding denials of his access to the prison law library. (See id. at 1-4.)

5

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

6

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including plaintiff’s objections,

7

the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper

8

analysis. Plaintiff has not shown that he will suffer irreparable harm if the court denies his

9

request for preliminary relief, and the claims advanced in his objections, like those in his motion

10

for a preliminary injunction, are unrelated to the claims asserted in his pending complaint.

11

(Compare Doc. No. 1 with Doc. Nos. 8-9, 14.)

12

Accordingly,

13

1.

14
15
16
17
18

The findings and recommendations filed on May 19, 2020 (Doc. No. 11) are
adopted in full; and,

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. Nos. 8-9) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 2, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2