Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01601/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01601-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LACEDRIC W. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. BEJINEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-BMK

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY MOTION 

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(ECF No. 47 & 43)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for 

judicial intervention requesting, among other things, that an order issue directing

Defendants to cease and desist “unethical conduct” and admonishing prison officials to 

“better regulate their legal mail.” (ECF NO. 43.) The matter was referred to a United 

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

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. 

On April 19, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations

(F&Rs), construing Plaintiff’s February 26, 2016 request as a motion for injunctive relief 

Case 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-SKO Document 56 Filed 12/19/16 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

and recommending that the motion be denied. (ECF No. 47.)1 Plaintiff was given thirty 

(30) days to file objections to the F&Rs. (Id.) Plaintiff failed to file objections. 

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 entire file, the 

Court finds the F&Rs to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court adopts in full the F&Rs filed April 19, 2016 (ECF No. 47); 

2. Plaintiff’s February 26, 2016 request (ECF No. 43), construed as a motion

for preliminary injunction, is DENIED; and 

3. The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1

Also included in Plaintiff’s February 26, 2016 request was a request to late-file an opposition to 

Defendants motion for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge addressed the timeliness of Plaintiff’s 

opposition filing in the context of an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ motion to 

strike. (See ECF No. 46.) Defendants’ opposition was deemed timely filed, so his request to late file is 

moot. 

Case 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-SKO Document 56 Filed 12/19/16 Page 2 of 2