Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00852/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00852-3/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

06cv852

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY L. ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. E. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06cv852 L (RBB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION [doc. #34]

In his 42 U.S.C. § complaint, plaintiff Jerry Armstrong, who is proceeding without

counsel, alleges his right of access to the courts has been violated. Plaintiff moves for a

preliminary injunction which would prevent the California Department of Corrections from

transferring him from Calipatria to another prison in retaliation for the present lawsuit. He

contends Facility Captain A. Miller recommended plaintiff’s transfer from Calipatria State

Prison to a prison camp for which he is ineligible.

This motion, along with several others, was referred to the assigned magistrate judge for a

Report and Recommendation (“Report”) under 28 U.S.C. § 363. Magistrate Judge Brooks filed

his Report on September 28, 2007 [doc. #49] which dealt with all the pending motions. Plaintiff

filed timely objections [doc. #50] to most of the recommendations but not to the

recommendation that the motion for preliminary injunction be denied. Accordingly, the Court

will address the preliminary injunction motion in this Order and will enter a separate order with

Case 3:06-cv-00852-L-RBB Document 51 Filed 01/30/08 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 06cv852

respect to the remaining motions discussed in the Report.

The district court’s role in reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation is

set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the district court “shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept,

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate

judge.” Id. Under this statute, “the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings

and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 238 (2003).

Here, plaintiff has not objected to the recommendation that his preliminary injunction be

denied. As the Report noted, the motion for preliminary injunction must be denied because it is

directed to an entity and to individuals who are not parties to this action. Moreover, plaintiff

cannot show that any prison transfer occurred in retaliation for this action. Finally, the Report

states that plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable injury if a transfer to another institution

occurred. Having reviewed the motion and Report, the Court concurs with the recommendation

to deny the motion for preliminary injunction.

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 30, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. RUBEN B. BROOKS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:06-cv-00852-L-RBB Document 51 Filed 01/30/08 Page 2 of 2