Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00005/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00005-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID BENNETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:24-cv-00005-DAD-EFB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION

(Doc. Nos. 6, 8)

Plaintiff David Bennett is a state jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On July 22, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that plaintiff’s pending motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 6) be 

denied. (Doc. No. 8.) In particular, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff had not advanced 

any argument or offered any evidence concerning the merits of his claim, the balance of equities, 

or the public interest at stake that would justify the issuing of a preliminary injunction. (Id. at 6–

7.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that 

any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 7.) On 

August 30, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem, a motion for 

Case 2:24-cv-00005-DAD-EFB Document 13 Filed 12/03/24 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

extension of time to file objections, and a motion for preliminary injunction which also contained 

his objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 11.)

Plaintiff’s objections are difficult to decipher but appear to allege that plaintiff had been 

tased to the point of death during prior interactions with police. (Id. at 2.) However, this 

contention does not meaningfully address the deficiencies identified by the magistrate in 

plaintiff’s pending civil rights complaint, in which plaintiff alleges that defendants are denying 

him access to the courts. (Doc. Nos. 1 at 3–5; 8 at 6–7.) Plaintiff also appears to raise a separate 

allegation in his objections that he is receiving unequal treatment on account of his race. (Doc. 

No. 11 at 2.) While the undersigned recognizes that plaintiff’s allegation, if advanced with some 

degree of specificity and clarity, could conceivably give rise to a cognizable § 1983 claim 

different from the one now before this court, such allegations do not provide a reason to reject the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations recommending that the pending motion for a 

preliminary injunction be denied.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 22, 2024 are adopted;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 6) is denied;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file objections (Doc. No. 11) is 

denied as moot;

4. Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of guardian ad litem and for a preliminary 

injunction (Doc. No. 11) are referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for 

further proceedings; and

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:24-cv-00005-DAD-EFB Document 13 Filed 12/03/24 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

5. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-00005-DAD-EFB Document 13 Filed 12/03/24 Page 3 of 3