Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02691/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02691-4/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

ARVELLO L. TUFONO,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMANDEEP DHILLION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-02691-DAD-DB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELEIF

(Doc. No. 9)

Plaintiff Arvello L. Tufono is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 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 302.

On March 4, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 1), in which he seeks 

an order compelling defendants to provide him with anti-seizure medications, be denied. (Doc. 

No. 9.) In particular, the magistrate judge concluded that any request for injunctive relief has 

been rendered moot because plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at the facility at which the events 

giving rise to his complaint allegedly occurred. (Id. at 2.) Those pending findings and 

recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 

to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) 

Case 2:23-cv-02691-DAD-SCR Document 21 Filed 07/15/24 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

On March 18, 2024, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 

No. 14.) In those objections, plaintiff concedes that “its true plaintiff has been transferred to 

different facilities—and defendants are no longer plaintiff’s primary care providers—so it would 

be pointless as of now to grant a preliminary injunction for relief against defendants.” (Doc. No. 

14 at 3.) 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

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

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 4, 2024 (Doc. No. 9) are 

adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. No. 1) is denied; and

3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-02691-DAD-SCR Document 21 Filed 07/15/24 Page 2 of 2