(PC) Lopez v. Medina ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH LOPEZ, No. 1:19-cv-00794-DAD-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING 13 v. PLAINITFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 14 MEDINA, et al., (Doc. No. 7) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 11, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 recommending that plaintiff’s motion for interim emergency injunctive relief (Doc. No. 3) be 22 denied because: (1) she1 has not established that she is likely to succeed on the merits of her 23 claims; and (2) her transfer from the facilities where she alleges she did not get along with other 24 prisoners and where she had been pressured into providing sexual favors renders her motion for 25 emergency injunctive relief moot. (Doc. No. 7 at 2–3.) The findings and recommendations were 26 27 1 Plaintiff alleges that she suffers from gender dysphoria, identifies as female, and uses female pronouns when referencing herself. Accordingly, the court will use female pronouns when 28 referring to plaintiff. 1 | served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty- 2 | one (21) days after service. (/d. at 3.) On July 1, 2019, plaintiff filed objections to the findings 3 | and recommendations. (Doc. No. 10.) 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C) and Local Rule 5 | 304, the undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 6 | entire file, including plaintiffs objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 7 | supported by the record and proper analysis. 8 In her objections, plaintiff contends that her “alleged claims are not limited to occurring at 9 | only [the two facilities mentioned in her complaint]” and that “parts of her pleadings imply more 10 || than those two prisons.” (/d. at 2.) The undersigned’s independent review of plaintiffs 11 | complaint, however, establishes that the allegations of the complaint are limited to facilities that 12 | plaintiff is no longer housed at. Moreover, plaintiff's objections do not meaningfully dispute that, 13 | at this point in the litigation, the court is unable to assess whether she is likely to succeed on the 14 | merits of her claims, a factor the court must consider when considering motions for preliminary 15 || injunctive relief. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (“A plaintiff 16 || seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he 17 | is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities 18 | tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interests.’’) 19 Accordingly, 20 1. The June 11, 2019 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 7) are adopted in full; 21 2. Plaintiff's motion for interim emergency injunctive relief (Doc. No. 3) is denied; 22 and 23 3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 24 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ September 3, 2019 aL Al 7 ye 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28