(PC) Jackson v. Quick ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CORNEL JACKSON, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-1591 JLT EPG ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL AND DENYING 13 v. ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY ) INJUNCTION 14 JASON QUICK, et al., ) ) (Docs. 90, 99) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 17 Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction concerning the denial of his request for legal 18 correspondence materials and alleging his “newly appointed criminal defense counsel” has interfered 19 with Plaintiff’s access to courts. (Doc. 90.) The assigned magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to 20 demonstrate that he suffered an actual injury and failed to establish that he was likely to succeed on the 21 merits. (Doc. 99.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the motion be denied on January 7, 22 2022. (Id. at 10.) 23 In his objections, to the findings and recommendations, Plaintiff argued that he was denied 24 postage three times to file a reply in support of his motion.1 (Doc. 100 at 2.) Notably, there is no 25 evidence that the individual defendants were involved in Plaintiff’s alleged denial of access to the 26 Court. Furthermore, as discussed by the magistrate judge, the jail has a policy for indigent inmates 27 28 1 Defendants filed a response to the objections. (Doc. 103.) 1 || regarding legal supplies. There is no evidence that Plaintiff followed the procedure for requesting □□□ 2 || postage or that officials at the jail failed to follow the procedures. Moreover, the Court received 3 numerous documents from Plaintiff in this action, including briefing related to his motion for a 4 || preliminary injunction, which undermines Plaintiff's assertion that his access to the Court is impaired 5 || The Court is unable to find the extraordinary circumstances to grant a preliminary injunction are 6 || present in this action. 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley Unitec 8 || School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 9 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, including Plaintiff's objections and Defendants’ response, the 10 || Court finds the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. □□□□ 11 || upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 12 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated January 7, 2022 (Doc. 99) are ADOPTED 13 IN FULL; and 14 2. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 90) is DENIED. 15 16 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ll Dated: _ March 23, 2022 Charis [Tourn 18 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28