Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01754/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01754-5/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

JOSEPH D. RODRIGUEZ,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,

 

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-01754-LJO-EPG

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(Doc. Nos. 9, 17, 25)

Joseph D. Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 19, 2015, 

Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case against Stuart Sherman (Warden of the California 

Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF)) (“Defendant”), for adverse conditions of 

confinement and related state claims. 

On December 11, 2015 and May 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed motions requesting preliminary 

injunctive relief seeking court orders preventing his transfer and requiring Defendant to provide 

him with prepacked meals. (ECF Nos. 9, 17.) Defendant opposed the motions on several 

grounds. (ECF Nos. 23-24.) 

The Magistrate Judge recommended on September 2, 2016, that Plaintiff’s motions 

requesting preliminary injunctive relief be denied because “Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of 

success on the merits of this case, and the orders for transfer and relief from retaliation sought by 

Case 1:15-cv-01754-LJO-EPG Document 26 Filed 10/17/16 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

Plaintiff would not remedy any of the claims in this case.” (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff was notified 

that he may file written objections with the Court within 20 days after being served with the 

findings and recommendations. (Id.) As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed any 

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 findings 

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

Accordingly, the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 25) are

ADOPTED in full, and Plaintiff’s motions requesting preliminary injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 9, 

17) are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01754-LJO-EPG Document 26 Filed 10/17/16 Page 2 of 2