Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00684/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00684-0/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

JOHN THOMAS ,

Plaintiff,

v.

RALPH DIAZ, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00684-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(Doc. No. 2, 11)

Plaintiff John Thomas is a 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.

On May 17, 2019, plaintiff filed his complaint (Doc. No. 1.) and a motion for a temporary 

restraining order and a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 2), the latter 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. Plaintiff’s 

complaint has not yet been screened by the assigned magistrate judge. On March 9, 2020, the 

assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s 

motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction be denied because: (1) the 

request for injunctive relief had been rendered moot by plaintiff’s transfer from Avenal State 

Case 1:19-cv-00684-DAD-BAM Document 12 Filed 04/03/20 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

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. 11.) 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 4–5.) 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. 11) 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: April 2, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00684-DAD-BAM Document 12 Filed 04/03/20 Page 2 of 2