Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01098/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01098-9/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

MANUEL ANTONIO GONZALEZ III,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. RAZO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-01098-DAD-SKO (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

AND AN INVESTIGATOR

(Docs. No. 3, 23)

Plaintiff Manuel Antonio Gonzalez III is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. With his complaint plaintiff filed a motion 

for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction seeking an order prohibiting 

certain prison staff members from coming within two-hundred feet of him. Plaintiff also moved 

for the appointment of an investigator to meet with him every thirty days during the pendency of 

this action. On December 29, 2015, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending 

that plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, as well as his 

motion for appointment of an investigator, be denied. (Doc. No. 23.) Plaintiff was provided an 

opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations within thirty days. No 

objections to the findings and recommendations were filed.

Case 1:15-cv-01098-DAD-EPG Document 25 Filed 03/08/16 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 

undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 

file, the court adopts the recommendation that plaintiff’s motions be denied. 

Plaintiff requests a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunctive relief to be 

issued against all defendants because in June 2015, prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, one of 

the named defendants (defendant Brennan) allegedly threatened him with harm for pursuing this 

litigation. (Doc. No. 3, at 6.) “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that 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. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). A 

preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter, 555 U.S. 

at 24. Here, even assuming the court could grant the preliminary relief sought, plaintiff has not 

made a sufficient showing of the likelihood of irreparable harm or of the likelihood of success on 

the merits to warrant the granting of preliminary relief.1 Therefore, the court adopts the 

recommendation that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary 

objection be denied. 

The undersigned also adopts the analysis and conclusion set forth in the findings and 

recommendations concerning plaintiff’s request to be appointed an investigator. Accordingly,

plaintiff’s motion for appointment of an expert will be denied.

For the reasons set forth above:

1. The court adopts the recommendation of the findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 

23), as discussed above; and

/////

/////

/////

 

1

 The analysis in the findings and recommendations which focused on plaintiff’s purported lack 

of standing to seek injunctive relief generally in this case is not adopted. Since plaintiff has not 

sought general injunctive relief for the harm alleged in his underlying complaint, the undersigned 

finds it unnecessary to address plaintiff’s standing to seek such relief. 

Case 1:15-cv-01098-DAD-EPG Document 25 Filed 03/08/16 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

2. Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction to be 

appointed an investigator (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01098-DAD-EPG Document 25 Filed 03/08/16 Page 3 of 3