Opinion
No. 1:19-cv-01176-DAD-GSA (PC)
12-17-2019
PAUL JOHN DENHAM, Plaintiff, v. STU SHERMAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Doc. Nos. 11, 15, 16, 22)
Paul John Denham is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On October 21, 2019, and October 23, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued identical findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff's September 11, 2019 motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. No. 11) be denied. (Doc. Nos. 15, 16.) Plaintiff was granted fourteen days in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections, and the time do so has since passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. In the September 11, 2019 motion for preliminary injunction, plaintiff is seeking to enjoin the conduct of various prison officials, but, as the magistrate judge correctly pointed out: (1) because the court has not yet screened his complaint, it cannot determine whether he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims, a factor the court must analyze when considering a motion for preliminary injunction; and (2) no defendant has yet appeared in this action, thus the court does not have jurisdiction to order the injunctive relief, which would require directing individuals not currently before the court to take action. (See, e.g., Doc. No. 15 at 3.) Accordingly, plaintiff's September 11, 2019 motion for preliminary injunction will be denied. Finally, after both the pending findings and recommendations were issued, plaintiff filed a second motion for preliminary injunction on December 12, 2019. (See Doc. No. 22.) That motion is substantially similar to the September 11, 2019 motion, and fails for the same reasons outlined in the pending findings and recommendations.
For the reasons set forth above,
1. The findings and recommendations issued October 21, 2019 and October 23, 2019 (Doc. Nos. 15, 16) are adopted in full; andIT IS SO ORDERED.
2. Plaintiff's September 11, 2019 and December 12, 2019 motions for preliminary injunctive relief are denied without prejudice to their refiling at a later stage of the proceedings if appropriate.
Dated: December 17 , 2019
/s/_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE