(PC)Vera v. Warden

Filing 75

ORDER ADOPTING 62 Findings and Recommendations to DENY 52 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and 53 Preliminary Injunction signed by District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff on 11/25/2024. (Xiong, J.)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

1:22-cv-00893-KES-CDB (PC)

WILLIAM VERA, aka Memo Vera,

10
11

v.

12

WARDEN, et al.,

13

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY
MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Defendants.

(Doc. 62)

14
15
16

Plaintiff William Vera, also known as Memo Vera, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se

17

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

18

was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

19

Rule 302.

20

On November 22, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and/or

21

preliminary injunction. Doc. 52. Plaintiff filed another motion for a preliminary injunction on

22

November 29, 2023, and included additional documents in support of his claim that his legal and

23

customary mail was censored. Doc. 53. On April 10, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued

24

findings and recommendations to deny plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining order and

25

preliminary injunction because plaintiff had not established that he was likely to succeed on the

26

merits of his claims, had not established he was likely to suffer irreparable harm, and had not

27

established that the balance of equities tipped in favor of granting a preliminary injunction. Doc.

28
1

1
2

62. Plaintiff filed timely objections on June 24, 2024. Doc. 67.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), the Court has conducted a de novo review of

3

this case. In his objections, plaintiff argues that defendants’ obstructionism will likely continue to

4

have a chilling effect on plaintiff’s constitutional rights and that the defendants have a

5

conspiratory alliance with the local post office to censor mail. Doc. 67 at 2. Plaintiff also

6

conclusory argues that the balance of equities tips in his favor, that injunctive relief is in the

7

public interest, and that he will likely succeed on the merits. Id. at 3. However, plaintiff’s

8

objections do not meaningfully challenge the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations.

9

Plaintiff’s vague and conclusory allegations of obstructionism, retaliation, and conspiracy are

10

insufficient and do not establish any basis for the extraordinary remedy of a temporary restraining

11

order or preliminary injunction.

12
13

Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be
supported by the record and by proper analysis.

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 10, 2024 (Doc. 62) are ADOPTED

16
17

IN FULL; and
2. Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (Docs. 52, 53) are DENIED.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 25, 2024
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2