Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00683/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00683-0/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

JORGE VELASQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

RALPH DIAZ, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00683-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(Doc. Nos. 2, 13)

Plaintiff Jorge Velasquez is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 

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

Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on May 17, 2019 (Doc. No. 1), has not yet been screened by 

the assigned magistrate judge. However, on May 20, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for a 

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, requesting that the court enjoin 

defendants and all persons acting on their behalf from merging or mixing the Sensitive Needs 

Yards prisoners with the General Population prisoners at Avenal State Prison. (Doc. No. 2.) On 

March 9, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that plaintiff’s motion be denied because: (1) the request for injunctive relief had 

Case 1:19-cv-00683-DAD-BAM Document 14 Filed 03/31/20 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

been rendered moot by plaintiff’s transfer from Avenal State Prison; (2) the court lacked 

jurisdiction over the yet unserved defendants; and (3) plaintiff had failed to demonstrate a threat 

of irreparable harm to himself. (Doc. No. 13.) The findings and recommendations were served 

on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) 

days of service. (Id. at 4.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been 

filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 

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

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and 

recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 9, 2020 (Doc. No. 13) are 

adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction

(Doc. No. 2) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00683-DAD-BAM Document 14 Filed 03/31/20 Page 2 of 2