Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00916/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00916-16/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 

FELIPE POLANCO DIAZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LYNCH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-00916 KJM CSK P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On April 17, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 

served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections to the 

findings and recommendations. 

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. The 

court considered plaintiff’s objections and found they do not clearly address the magistrate 

judge’s findings and recommendations nor show plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief. 

Case 2:21-cv-00916-DC-CSK Document 62 Filed 08/23/24 Page 1 of 2
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 

However, the court notes plaintiff is not precluded from seeking a preliminary injunction in the 

future. In any future motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiff must clearly “establish that he 

is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 

preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the 

public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations, ECF No. 51, are adopted in full; 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, ECF No. 43, is denied as moot; and 

 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 

proceedings. 

DATED: August 23, 2024. 

Case 2:21-cv-00916-DC-CSK Document 62 Filed 08/23/24 Page 2 of 2