Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00352/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00352-7/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

EUGENE C. BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. CHOTHIA, Janitor at Sierra 

Conservation Center, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00352-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE 

RELIEF

(Doc. Nos. 25, 49, 52)

Plaintiff Eugene C. Brown is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action filed 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 302. 

On October 11, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief, requesting that the court 

order defendants to enact safer handling procedures for the propane tanks that power the forklifts 

in California’s Sierra Conservation Center sewing factory where plaintiff was previously 

employed. (Doc. No. 25.) On January 28, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings 

and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s motion for temporary injunctive relief be 

denied as moot. (Doc. No. 49.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and 

contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after 

service. (Id. at 2) Plaintiff timely filed objections on February 10, 2010. (Doc. No. 52.)

Case 1:19-cv-00352-DAD-EPG Document 53 Filed 03/30/20 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 

including plaintiff’s objections and his reply to defendants’ opposition to his motion,

1

the court 

concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

In both his reply and objections, plaintiff appears to raise three arguments. First, plaintiff 

asserts that defendants’ handling of propane tanks is dangerous and exposes plaintiff and all 

others present at the sewing factory to the risk of harm. (Doc. No. 46 at 2.) The magistrate judge 

addressed this concern, concluding that plaintiff is “no longer exposed to the risk of harm upon 

which his motion for temporary injunctive relief is based” because: 1) plaintiff no longer works 

at the sewing factory where the propane was allegedly mishandled; and 2) defendants assert that 

they have changed the propane handling procedure at issue in this lawsuit. (Doc. No. 49 at 2.) 

In response, plaintiff argues that he is still entitled to injunctive relief because defendants’ 

practices “are capable of repetition, but evading review.” (Doc. No. 52 at 2.) He argues that once 

the scrutiny of a lawsuit passes, defendants can simply return to their old practices. (Id.) This 

exception, reserved for “extraordinary cases,” does not apply here. Doe v. Madison Sch. Dist. No. 

321, 177 F.3d 789, 798 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc). In this case, plaintiff has not shown that there 

is “a reasonable expectation that the same party will confront the same controversy again,” nor is 

the practice in question one that is “inherently limited in duration such that it is likely always to 

become moot before federal court litigation is completed.” W. Coast Seafood Processors Ass’n v. 

Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 643 F.3d 701, 704–05 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted).

Finally, plaintiff raises several arguments in his objections relating to the retaliation that 

he allegedly faces as a result of the filing of this lawsuit and appears to add a request to be 

returned to the C-yard, where he was previously housed, and be allowed to continue employment 

at the Center’s sewing factory. (Doc. No. 52 at 2.) However, plaintiff did not request this 

injunctive relief in his original motion or in his opening brief submitted in support thereof. (See 

 

1

 Plaintiff asserts in his objections that the magistrate judge failed to properly consider his reply 

brief in the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 52 at 3; see Doc. No. 46.)

Case 1:19-cv-00352-DAD-EPG Document 53 Filed 03/30/20 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

Doc. No. 25.) The court cannot grant a motion based on a new claim or argument raised for the 

first time in a reply brief because “[p]arties are required to raise all of their arguments in their 

opening brief to prevent ‘sandbagging’ of [the] non-moving party and to provide opposing 

counsel the chance to respond.” United States v. Uptergrove, No. 1:06-cv-01630-AWI-GSA, 

2008 WL 5251777, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2008) (listing cases). Even if the court were to 

consider plaintiff’s request, he did not provide enough supporting facts or law in his reply brief to 

prevail on his motion.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 28, 2020 (Doc. No. 49), are 

adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 25) is denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00352-DAD-EPG Document 53 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 3