Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01949/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01949-4/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 

- "

FILED 

[ SEP 2 0 2011 ] 

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BY DEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OMAR ERNEST EPPS, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

N. GRANNIS, et aI., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 1O-cv-01949 BEN (MDD) 

ORDER: 

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

[Docket Nos. 20, 59] 

Plaintiff Omar Ernest Epps, a prisoner at Calipatria State Prison proceeding pro se, filed a 

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction on February 22, 2011. 

(Docket No. 20.) On May 20,2011, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion. (Docket No. 50.) 

On June 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a reply. (Docket No. 56.) Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin 

issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiffs Motion 

for Injunctive Reliefbe denied. (Docket No. 59.) Any objections to the Report and Recommendation 

were due August 19, 2011. (ld) On August 22,2011, having not received any objections to the 

Report and Recommendation, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation. (Docket No. 60.) 

On August 26, 2011, the Court received an Objection from Plaintiff. (Docket No. 62.) Having 

reviewed the matter de novo, the Report is ADOPTED over Plaintiffs Objection. Plaintiffs Motion 

for Injunctive Relief is DENIED. 

In his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Plaintiff claimed that an injunction was 

- 1 - llkv01949 

Case 3:10-cv-01949-BEN-KSC Document 65 Filed 09/20/11 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 

necessary because he has been "denied his right to free exercise and expression ofreligion." (Docket 

No. 20.) Plaintiff argued that if his Motion is not granted, these violations will continue. (Jd.) 

Specifically, Plaintiff contended that: (1) he should be allowed into the Kosher diet program as his 

"heart risk and bad cholesterol are rising"; (2) he should be able to receive "special religious packages" 

and "religious artifacts"; (3) that he and other Muslims should be allowed to attend worship services; 

and (4) that his Ramadan and "Eidul Fitr prayers have been severely hindered and/or refused." (Jd.) 

Judge Dembin recommended that the motion be denied because: (I) Plaintiff has not clearly 

established that he will suffer an irreparable injury if an injunction is not granted; (2) Plaintiffhas not 

established a likelihood of success on the merits; (3) Plaintiff has not established that the balance of 

equities favor granting an injunction; and (4) Plaintiffhas not established that the public interest favors 

granting an injunction. 

The Court need only conduct a de novo review of those issues to which Plaintiff objects. 

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) ("The statute makes it 

clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo 

ijobjection is made, but not otherwise."); see also Wangv. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000n.13 (9th Cir. 

2005). Plaintiff objects to all four ofthe Report's findings. After a de novo review ofthe Report and 

Recommendation as well as Plaintiffs Objection, the Court finds that (l) Plaintiff has not clearly 

established that he will suffer an irreparable injury ifan injunction is not granted, (2) Plaintiff has not 

established a likelihood ofsuccess on the merits, (3) Plaintiff has not established that the balance of 

equities favor granting an injunction, and (4) Plaintiff has not established that the public interest favors 

granting an injunction. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Dembin's Report and 

Recommendation. Plaintiffs Motion for Injunctive Relief is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: Septembe~, 2011 

-2- lOcvOl949 

Case 3:10-cv-01949-BEN-KSC Document 65 Filed 09/20/11 Page 2 of 2