(PC) Wilson v. Sherman ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID W. WILSON, Case No.: 1:22-cv-00874 JLT SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING CONCLUSION OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 13 v. DENY MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 14 STUART SHERMAN, et al., (Doc. 15) 15 Defendants. 16 17 David W. Wilson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 19, 2023, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 recommending that Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief be denied. (Doc. 15.) Plaintiff was 22 afforded 14 days within which to file objections. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff filed objections on February 23 8, 2023. (Doc. 17.) 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 25 de novo review of this case. Plaintiff’s assertions are not entirely coherent, but the Court has 26 undertaken considerable effort to try to understand them. Having carefully reviewed the file, 27 including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds it appropriate to adopt the conclusion of the 1 | demonstrated he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief, as is 2 | required by Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). First, his underlying 3 | complaint and motions for injunctive relief advance claims and assertions on behalf of numerous 4 | prisoners. (Docs. 1, 2, 11.) As the Court explained in denying Plaintiffs request for class 5 | certification, Plaintiff is not permitted to advance claims on behalf of anyone other than himself. 6 | (Docs. 14, 18.) Plaintiff has not provided information that would allow the Court to connect any 7 | of his assertions of harm to Plaintiff, let alone establish that Plaintiff faces imminent, serious 8 | harm. Moreover, many of the specific instances of alleged harmful conditions date back several 9 | (and sometimes many) years. It is unclear whether those conditions persist or are likely to return. 10 | Finally, as to other asserted harmful conditions, such as allegations that black mold is present, the 11 | factual underpinnings of Plaintiff's conclusory allegations have been denied by Defendants in 12 | writing in the attachments Plaintiff provided. On such a record, Plaintiff has not carried his 13 | burden of demonstrating the extraordinary remedy of preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate. 14 | Plaintiffs objections do not cure these defects. For all these reasons, the motions must be 15 | DENIED. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 16 1. The conclusion of the findings and recommendations issued on January 19, 2023 17 (Doc. 15) is ADOPTED, pursuant to the reasoning provided above. 18 2. Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief (Docs. 2, 11) are DENIED; and 19 3. This action is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: February 24, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28