(PC) Wolinski v. Eldridge et al

Filing 79

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/27/24 ADOPTING in full 71 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 69 , 70 , 73 , 74 , 75 plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief. This matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Salmeron, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KRZYSZTOF F. WOLINSKI,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. 2:19-cv-02037-DAD-DMC (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.
LAURA ELDRIDGE, et al.,

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

Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75)
Plaintiff Krzysztof F. Wolinski is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

18

in this civil rights action filed 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 April 15, 2024 and May 1, 2024, plaintiff filed motions for injunctive relief,

21

specifically requesting a court order directing prison officials at the California Medical Facility to

22

grant plaintiff access to the prison law library as a preferred user under the Americans with

23

Disabilities Act. (Doc. Nos. 69, 70.) On May 15, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued

24

findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief be

25

denied because plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements to obtain injunctive relief, specifically

26

that plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm absent

27

the requested injunctive relief. (Doc. No. 71.) Moreover, in the findings and recommendations,

28

the magistrate judge explained that “[t]o the extent plaintiff requires additional time due to
1

1

limited law library access, the court will entertain [a] request for additional time for good cause

2

shown.” (Id. at 2.)

3

The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice

4

that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3.) To

5

date, plaintiff has not filed any objections and the time in which to do so has passed. Instead,

6

plaintiff filed three additional motions for injunctive relief seeking a court order directing the

7

prison law librarian to provide plaintiff access to ADA computers enabled with certain software

8

programs. (Doc. Nos. 73, 74, 75.) In those motions, however, plaintiff has likewise not

9

demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm absent the requested

10

injunctive relief, and thus plaintiff’s additional motions for injunctive relief will be denied for the

11

same reasons. Notably, plaintiff did not address the requirements for obtaining injunctive relief,

12

even though the court has consistently denied plaintiff’s multiple requests for injunctive relief

13

throughout this litigation due to his failure to satisfy those requirements.

14

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

15

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

16

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

17

Accordingly,

18

1.

19

adopted in full;

20

2.

21

Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (Doc. Nos. 69, 70, 73, 74, 75) are denied;
and

22

3.

23

This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further
proceedings.

24
25

The findings and recommendations issued on May 15, 2024 (Doc. No. 71) are

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 27, 2024
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2