(PC) Lipsey v. Seitz ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR., No. 1:18-cv-00766-AWI-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 B. SEITZ, et al., (Doc. 52) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Christopher Lipsey, Jr., is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis 18 in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This 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 March 17, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 30) be denied. (Doc. 35.) 22 Plaintiff failed to file objections, and the Court adopted the findings and recommendations on 23 June 26, 2020. (Doc. 46.) 24 On August 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s June 26, 25 2020 order. (Doc. 52.) Plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge erroneously relied on federal law 26 in recommending denial of the preliminary injunction, when he had relied on state law in his 27 motion. See id. at 2-3. Plaintiff also provides “new evidence” regarding his claims of retaliation: he alleges that, although he had a package delivered to High Desert State Prison (HDSP) on April 4:40 EUAN SINR MVOC IO VO Ee Yh ev 1 | 21, 2020, officials at HDSP informed him they had no package belonging to him on July 7, 2020. 2 | Ud. at 4-5.) 3 First, federal law governs the procedural question of when a preliminary injunction will 4 | issue. Flood v. Clearone Communs., Inc., 618 F.3d 1110, 1117 (10th Cir. 2010); Cretified 5 | Restoration Dry Cleaning Networks, LLC v. Tenke Corp., 511 F.3d 535, 541 (6th Cir. 2007). 6 | Thus, reliance on the federal procedural law was not erroneous. 7 Second, Plaintiffs “new evidence” fails to show the Court erred in adopting the 8 || recommendations or provide other grounds for granting his motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff 9 | alleges that property he mailed to HDSP is now missing. (See Doc. 52 at 4-5.) The allegation does 10 | not show that he is, or was, likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of his requested relief. 11 | If Defendant indeed discarded or destroyed Plaintiffs property in retaliation for filing this 12 | lawsuit, as Plaintiff implies, Plaintiff may file a new action for damages. 13 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 52) is denied. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 | Dated: _August 10, 2020 — 7 : 7 Cb bod — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28