Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01810/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01810-3/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

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID CHUBBUCK,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HAYDEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-01810-OWW-DLB-P

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 5)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. 3)

David Chubbuck (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding

pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On December 20, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings

and Recommendations herein which were served on Plaintiff and

which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty (20)

days. On January 10, 2007, Plaintiff filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:06-cv-01810-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 03/13/07 Page 1 of 3
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

On February 8, 2007, the Court issued an Order Adopting the

Findings and Recommendations and denying plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunctive relief. The Court’s February 8, 2007

Order erroneously stated that plaintiff did not file objections

to the Findings and Recommendations.

On March 5, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for

reconsideration of the Court’s February 8, 2007 Order based on

the Court’s failure to reference the objections.

Due to the erroneous statement in the Order Adopting the

Findings and Recommendation, plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration filed March 5, 2007 is HEREBY GRANTED. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case, including plaintiff’s January 10,

2007 objections to the Findings and Recommendations filed

December 20, 2007. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported

by the record and by proper analysis. 

As an initial matter, the Court advises plaintiff that while

he has declined to consent to jurisdiction of the United States

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

Rule 72-302, in cases brought by persons in custody who are

seeking relief authorized by 42 U.S. §1981 et.seq., dispositive

motions, including motions for preliminary injunctive relief, are

referred to the Magistrate Judge for findings and recommendations

to the District Judge. 

As discussed by the Magistrate Judge, plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunction is premature. While the Court has

Case 1:06-cv-01810-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 03/13/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

determined that service of the complaint is appropriate pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Complaint has not yet been served on

defendants. In order to issue an injunction, the Court must have

jurisdiction over the parties and the claim. Once defendants are

before the Court, plaintiff may seek preliminary injunctive

relief by filing and serving an appropriate motion. 

Finally, the purpose of a preliminary injunction is to

preserve the status quo if the balance of equities so heavily

favors the moving party that justice requires the court to

intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the action

are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451

U.S. 390, 395 (1981). The Court’s ruling on a motion for

preliminary injunctive relief does not foreclose the subsequent

adjudication of the case on the merits. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed December 20,

2006, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief,

filed December 13, 2006, is DENIED, without prejudice to refiling

at a later time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01810-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 03/13/07 Page 3 of 3