Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00694/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00694-2/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

KAREN SAHAKYAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

RALPH DIAZ, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00694-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER AND 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(Doc. Nos. 2, 11)

Plaintiff Karen Sahakyan is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action filed 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 May 20, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a 

preliminary injunction to enjoin defendants from merging inmates in protective custody with 

inmates in general population onto the same yard at Avenal State Prison. (Doc. No. 2 at 2–3.) 

On October 28, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that plaintiff’s motion be denied because plaintiff has since been transferred to 

Soledad State Prison, rendering his request for injunctive relief, which relates to Avenal State 

Prison, moot. (Doc. No. 11 at 4.) It was also recommended that plaintiff’s motion be denied 

because “he has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable 

Case 1:19-cv-00694-DAD-EPG Document 14 Filed 02/11/20 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

harm, of a weighing of the equities that tips in his favor.” (Id.) The pending findings and 

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

to be filed within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service. (Id. at 7.) No objections to the 

pending findings and recommendations have been filed with the court, and the time for doing so 

has expired.

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 October 28, 2019 (Doc. No. 11) are 

adopted in full;

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

(Doc. No. 2) is denied; and

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

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00694-DAD-EPG Document 14 Filed 02/11/20 Page 2 of 2