Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00399/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00399-12/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEWART MANAGO,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVEY, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00399 LJO DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER

(Document 21)

Plaintiff Stewart Manago (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis,

1

filed this civil rights action on March 24, 2016. The action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s 

First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants Davey, Sexton, Vander Poel, Maxfield, 

Valdez, Acevedo and Razo. Defendants have not yet been served.

Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order on May 4, 2016. The 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 11, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that

Plaintiff’s motion be denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and 

contained notice that any objections must be filed within twenty-one (21) days. Plaintiff filed 

objections on June 3, 2016.

 

1

Plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), but the Court determined that the allegations in his complaint met the 

imminent danger exception and permitted him to proceed in forma pauperis.

Case 1:16-cv-00399-DAD-GSA Document 37 Filed 06/06/16 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

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

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections, 

the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper 

analysis.

Plaintiff’s request for emergency injunctive relief is related to Defendant Davey and 

Maxfield’s alleged retaliatory transfer back to California State Prison- Sacrament, C Yard, where he 

has documented enemies. He appears to seek an order reversing this transfer, as well as a hearing to 

“secure additional testimony.” ECF No. 18, at 7. 

However, as the magistrate judge explained in the Findings and Recommendations, the 

Court’s jurisdiction is limited to Plaintiff’s claim arising from an alleged retaliatory retention in the 

SHU at Corcoran State Prison. Thus, Plaintiff’s request related to his transfer is beyond the scope of 

the Court’s jurisdiction in this action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 11, 2016, are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Document 18) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00399-DAD-GSA Document 37 Filed 06/06/16 Page 2 of 2