(PC) Delphin v. Edwards ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JEREMY DELPHIN, No. 2:23-cv-00493 KJM DB P 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 EDWARDS, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 16 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 17 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 On May 10, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 19 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 20 recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings 21 and recommendations. Obj., ECF No. 15. 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 23 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 24 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. At the 25 time he filed his complaint, plaintiff resided at C.S.P. Sacramento, where he alleges defendants 26 committed constitutional violations. Compl. at 6, ECF No. 1. But at the time he filed his motion 27 for a preliminary injunction, plaintiff resided temporarily in segregated housing outside of C.S.P. 28 Sacramento. Mot. at 3, ECF No. 10. As such, the magistrate judge correctly recommended this 1 | court deny plaintiffs motion because plaintiff could not show he faced imminent harm within the 2 || parameters of the complaint. F&R at 3, ECF No. 12. Plaintiff states in his objections that he has 3 || now returned to C.S.P. Sacramento and a correctional officer is “constantly threading [sic] 4 || [plaintiffs life.’ Obj. at 2. Plaintiff may now demonstrate “that he is likely to suffer irreparable 5 || harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an 6 || injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def: Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 7 || Because of this change in circumstances, the court declines to adopt the magistrate judge’s 8 | findings and recommendations and refers the matter back to the magistrate judge to consider 9 | plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief on the merits. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 11 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 10, 2023, are not adopted; and 12 2. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 13 || proceedings consistent with this order. 14 | DATED: June 30, 2023. 16 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28