(PC) Gardner v. CDCR ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL OWEN GARDNER, Case No. 1:24-cv-0933 JLT SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR 14 CDCR, et al., PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 15 Defendants. (Doc. 9) 16 17 Michael Owen Gardner seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights 18 while housed at SATF- Corcoran. (See generally Doc. 1.) He requests a temporary restraining 19 order or preliminary injunction to protect disabled inmates, such as himself. (Doc. 1 at 8-12.) 20 Specifically, Plaintiff requests that the Court order “the California Department of Corrections and 21 Rehabilitation to cease using Facility-A building (3) as an [Orientation] Building and to cease 22 bringing active [main] line prisoner and gang members to this Facility-A who do not want to 23 program.” (Id. at 12.) In addition, Plaintiff requests the Court order the CDCR stop the assaults 24 on disabled inmates that occur in Facility-A. (Id.) 25 The magistrate judge found Plaintiff “failed to make a sufficient showing to warrant the 26 granting of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction.” (Doc. 9 at 3.) The 27 magistrate judge also noted that a party seeking a preliminary injunction must show a “likelihood 28 of succeed on the merits,” and determined that Plaintiff failed to satisfy this requirement because 1 | he did not state cognizable claims in his complaint. (/d. at 3, citing Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. 2 | Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the motion 3 | for injunctive relief be denied. 4 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that 5 | any objections were to be filed within fourteen days. (Doc. 9 at 4.) The Court also informed 6 | Plaintiff that the failure to file timely objections may result in a waiver of his rights on appeal. 7 Ud., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file any 8 | objections and the time to do so has expired. 9 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court performed a de novo review of this case. 10 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 11 || are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 12 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on September 11, 2024 (Doc. 9) are 13 ADOPTED in full. 14 2. Plaintiffs request for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction 15 (Doc. | at 8-12) is DENIED. 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1g | Dated: _ October 9, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28