Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01067/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01067-10/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

LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JALLA SOLTANIAN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-01067-DAD-JDP (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECCOMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(Doc. Nos. 68, 86)

Plaintiff Larry William Cortinas is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 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 January 5, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order

be denied. (Doc. No. 86.) Specifically, the magistrate judge denied plaintiff’s motion because it 

sought relief based upon alleged conduct that both differed from the allegations contained in the 

underlying complaint. (Id. at 2 & n.1); see also Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. 

Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (“We hold that there must be a relationship between the 

injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying 

Case 2:20-cv-01067-DAD-JDP Document 88 Filed 01/31/23 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

complaint.”). 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. (Doc. No. 86 at 5.) On January 23, 2023, plaintiff filed timely objections to the pending 

findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 87.)

In plaintiff’s objections, he has failed to address the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations regarding plaintiff’s pending motion for a preliminary injunction and

temporary restraining order. (Id. at 1–2.) Instead, plaintiff merely objects to the magistrate 

judge’s order, that was issued along with the pending findings and recommendations, denying 

plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery and his request for a scheduling order.

1

 (Id.) Thus, 

plaintiff’s objections provide no basis upon which to reject the pending findings and 

recommendations recommending that his motion for preliminary injunctive relief be denied.

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 finds the findings 

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 5, 2023 (Doc. No. 86) are 

adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order 

(Doc. No. 68) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2023 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

 The magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations were combined with an order ruling on 

five discovery motions. (Doc. No. 86 at 1.) 

Case 2:20-cv-01067-DAD-JDP Document 88 Filed 01/31/23 Page 2 of 2