(PC) Harper v. Robinson ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JONATHAN SETH HARPER, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-1364 JLT EPG (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING 13 v. ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE ) RELIEF 14 DAVID ROBINSON, et al., ) 15 Defendants. ) (Docs. 3, 12, 21) ) 16 ) 17 Plaintiff filed a motion requesting injunctive relief. (Doc. 3.) The assigned magistrate judge 18 entered an order requesting that the Kings County Sheriff’s Office respond to Plaintiff’s motion. 19 (Doc. 6.) The Kings County Sheriff’s Office filed an opposition to the motion on October 6, 2021 20 (Doc. 8), to which Plaintiff filed a reply (Doc. 9). On November 22, 2021, Plaintiff also filed a 21 document titled “[proposed] TRO/preliminary injunction” requesting slightly different relief than the 22 prior motion. (Doc. 12.) 23 On March 16, 2022, the magistrate judge determined injunctive relief was procedurally 24 improper, because no defendant has been served yet in this action. (Doc. 21 at 7, citing Zepeda v. INS, 25 753 F.2d 719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 1983); S.E.C. v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1140 (9th Cir. 2007).) In 26 addition, the magistrate judge found “Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or 27 the existence of serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tipping in Plaintiff’s 28 favor.” (Id. at 7.) The magistrate judge determined the request for injunctive relief was also deficient nen en ne een ene nn nn nn nn nn EI I 1 || because “[m]uch of the relief Plaintiff requests in his motion is extremely broad and vague, and it is r 2 || clear how, if at all, it is related to the allegations in the complaint.” (/d. at 8.) Finally, the magistrate 3 || judge found Plaintiff did not show “he would suffer irreparable harm without preliminary relief.” (Jd 4 || Thus, the magistrate judge recommended the requests for injunctive relief be denied. (/d.) 5 The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any 6 || objections were to be filed within fourteen days from the date of service. (Doc. 21 at 8.) Plaintiff wa: 7 || “advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on 8 || appeal.” (Ud. at 9, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. 9 || Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) To date, no objections have been filed and the time i 10 || which to do so has passed.! ll According to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo 12 || review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the Findings and 13 || Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 14 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated March 16, 2022 (Doc. 21) are adopted in fi 15 2. Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief (Docs. 3 and 12) are denied. 16 17 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 | Dated: _ April 29, 2022 ( LAW ph UJ bwin 19 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ||! Plaintiff filed a new motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on April 6, 2021 (Doc. 22), afte the deadline for objections. The Court declines to construe the document as “objections” because Plaintiff includes new 28 || requests and does not address the findings of the magistrate judge. Therefore, the Court will address the new motion separately, as soon as is practicable in light of its heavy caseload.