(PC) Matthews v. Ramos et al

Filing 36

ORDER ADOPTING 31 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 30 Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/26/2023. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GENE RAYMOND MATTHEWS, III

12
13

v.

14

S. RAMOS, et al.

15

No. 1:22-cv-01508 JLT SAB (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF

Defendants.

(Docs. 30, 31)

16
17

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order barring

19

the defendants from: assault/battery; inciting inmate violence; peddling propaganda; soliciting his

20

murder; sexual harassment; threats; creating false documentation; filing frivolous rules violations

21

reports; “[a]rbitrarily and maliciously classifying plaintiff;” retaliation; inappropriate housing,

22

including “[h]ousing mentally ill disruptive prisoners around plaintiff;” and “systemic racial

23

discrimination.” (Doc. 30 at 3-4.)

24

On August 21, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to demonstrate

25

that “he is or will be subject to immediate and irreparable harm if an injunction does not issue.”

26

(Doc. 31 at 2.) The magistrate judge observed: “Plaintiff claims generally that he is afraid of

27

officers, at a different institution, based on the November 2021 alleged assault. But Plaintiff

28

articulates no facts demonstrating a threat of imminent or likely harm.” (Id.) The magistrate
1

1

judge also noted that Plaintiff was no longer housed at the same facility where the defendants are

2

employed, and found no “presently existing actual threat.” (Id. at 2-3.) The magistrate judge

3

acknowledged Plaintiff has a “fear of correctional officers,” but noted injunctive relief may not

4

be obtained “based upon such a generalized fear.” (Id. at 3.) Therefore, the magistrate judge

5

recommended the request for injunctive relief be denied. (Id.)

6

Plaintiff filed timely objections on September 18, 2023. (Doc. 35.) Plaintiff contends he

7

has a “need for immediate safety and security from being set up to be assaulted and/or violently

8

assaulted again by defendant(s), their successors, agents, employees, and all persons acting in

9

concert with them.” (Id. at 1-2.) Importantly, however, Plaintiff again does not identify any

10

specific acts supporting a conclusion that he is in “immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or

11

damage” by the defendants, as required by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See

12

Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(1)(A). For example, there are no facts alleged connecting the defendants to

13

correctional officers at Plaintiff’s current facility. Rather, Plaintiff reiterates his general safety

14

fears. As the magistrate judge determined, such generalized fear is insufficient to support his

15

request for injunctive relief.

16

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this

17

case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court

18

concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

19

Thus, the Court hereby ORDERS:

20

1.

21
22

The findings and recommendations issued on August 21, 2023 (Doc. 31), are
ADOPTED in full.

2.

23

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order
(Doc. 30) is DENIED.

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 26, 2023

27
28
2