Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00917/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00917-3/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

ARABELLA FAIRCHILD,

Plaintiff,

v.

VANG, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-0917 JLT GSA (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE 

RELIEF

(Doc. 13)

Arabella Fairchild seeks injunctive relief related to her prison trust account, asserting that 

funds from a settlement were wrongfully taken. (Doc. 9 at 2-3, 6.) The magistrate judge found 

the Court has no jurisdiction over the individuals she believes wrongfully took the funds at this 

time, because the matter has not been served. (Doc. 13 at 3.) Therefore, the magistrate judge 

found the “motion for injunctive relief must be denied at the outset,” and recommended the 

motion be denied. (Id. at 3, 6.)

 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified her that any 

objections were due no later than February 20, 2024. (Doc. 13 at 6.) The Court advised Plaintiff 

that the failure to file objections by the ordered deadline may result in the waiver of rights on 

appeal. (Id. at 7, citing Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).) Plaintiff did not 

file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 

 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 

Case 1:23-cv-00917-JLT-GSA Document 14 Filed 03/01/24 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

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 

are supported by the record and proper analysis. Moreover, a plaintiff seeking an injunction must 

show “he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 

absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction 

is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Plaintiff 

did not carry this burden. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued February 6, 2024 (Doc. 13) are 

ADOPTED in full.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an emergency preliminary injunction (Doc. 9) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2024 

Case 1:23-cv-00917-JLT-GSA Document 14 Filed 03/01/24 Page 2 of 2