(PC) Henderson v. Castillo et al

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING 16 Findings and Recommendations and Denying 4 Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/5/2021. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CURTIS LEE HENDERSON, SR., 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. S. CASTILLO, JR., et al., 15 Defendants. No. 1:20-cv-01199-AWI-SKO (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (Doc. No. 16) 16 17 Plaintiff Curtis Lee Henderson, Sr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302. 20 On November 24, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and 21 recommendations, recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 22 No. 4) be denied. Doc. No. 16. The magistrate judge found that Plaintiff’s request for single-cell 23 status is now moot, and that his request for Defendants to “refrain from . . . retaliation or activities 24 that violate the constitution” is not narrowly tailored. Id. at 2–3. The findings and 25 recommendations were served on Plaintiff and provided him fourteen days to file objections 26 thereto. Id. at 3. 27 28 Plaintiff filed objections on December 29, 2020. Doc. No. 18. The objections are dated December 3, 2020, but do not include a proof of service and were not received by the Court until 1 nearly four weeks later. Thus, it is unclear whether the objections were timely submitted to 2 prison officials for mailing to the Court. Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, the Court 3 considers the objections. Therein, Plaintiff requests that the Court take “judicial notice” of the 4 supplemental information he filed in support of his motion. The supplemental information, 5 however, is not related to the claims in the motion. Doc. Nos. 4 & 14. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 7 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s 8 objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 9 proper analysis. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. 12 13 The findings and recommendations issued on November 24, 2020 (Doc. No. 16), are ADOPTED in full; and 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 4) is DENIED. 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 5, 2021 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 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?