Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00226/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00226-6/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

RICHARD A. EVANS,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. SHERMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00226-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION

(Doc. No. 28)

Plaintiff Richard Evans is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

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

On February 10, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that he be transferred to San 

Quentin State Prison because he is allegedly having difficulties accessing the law library 

resources at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran where he is currently 

incarcerated and, according to plaintiff, San Quentin State Prison has a law office and no law 

library limitations. (Doc. No. 28.) On February 13, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued 

finding and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion, which the magistrate judge 

construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction, be denied because plaintiff “does not have a 

constitutional right to be incarcerated at a particular correctional facility (or to be transferred from 

Case 1:19-cv-00226-DAD-BAM Document 43 Filed 04/03/20 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

one facility to another).” (Doc. No. 31 at 2.) The pending findings and recommendations were 

served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 

fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id. at 3.) On February 27, 2020, plaintiff filed 

timely objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 35.) 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 

conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including 

plaintiff’s objections, the undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendations are 

supported by the record and proper analysis.

In his objections to the pending findings and recommendations, plaintiff merely reiterates 

the arguments presented in his motion. (Doc. No. 35.) Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections 

provide no basis upon which to reject the pending findings and recommendations.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 13, 2020 (Doc. No. 31) are 

adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 28) is denied.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00226-DAD-BAM Document 43 Filed 04/03/20 Page 2 of 2