(PC) Mitchell v. CA Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations and Denying 3 , 8 & 9 Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunctive Relief signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/4/2024. (Lawrence, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN EDWARD MITCHELL,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
CA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
& REHABILITATION, et al.,

Case No. 1:24-cv-0522 JLT BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Docs. 3, 8, 9, and13)

Defendants.
John Edward Mitchell is a state prisoner and seeks to hold the defendants—including the

18

CDCR, the Secretary of the CDCR, the Warden at Kern Valley State Prison, and several

19

correctional officers— liable for violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See

20

generally Doc. 1.) Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, asserting that he has a continued risk of

21

retaliatory acts that include physical assault, false rules violations report, mail withholding,

22

violations of his religious rights, and other potential unconstitutional conditions of confinement.

23

(See Docs. 3, 8, and 9.)

24

The magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to show he is entitled to injunctive relief,

25

because he does not “show[] a likelihood of success on the merits.” (Doc. 13 at 4.) In addition,

26

the magistrate judge determined Plaintiff did not demonstrate he will suffer an irreparable harm if

27

injunctive relief is not granted. (Id.) The magistrate judge found that Plaintiff does not show “the

28

balance of equities tips in his favor, or that an injunction is in the public interest.” (Id.) Finally,
1

1

the magistrate judge observed that Plaintiff “has not shown that the broad relief sought, such as

2

preventing any correctional staff from any institution from performing any act that might trigger

3

Plaintiff’s PTSD, or the specific relief sought, such as preventing certain non-party individuals

4

from taking actions that might violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, has any relationship to the

5

underlying claims in presented in the complaint.” (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge

6

recommended Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief be denied. (Id. at 5.)

7

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that

8

any objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 13 at 5.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the

9

failure to file objections by the specified deadline may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.

10

(Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file

11

objections, and the time to do so has passed.

12

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

13

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations

14

are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

15

1.

16
17

The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 3, 2024 (Doc. 13) are
ADOPTED in full.

2.

18

Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief (Docs. 3, 8, 9) are DENIED
without prejudice.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 4, 2024

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2