Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01874/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01874-33/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BILAL AHDOM,

Plaintiff,

 v.

S. LOPEZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:09-cv-01874-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION, MOTIONS TO TAKE 

JUDICIAL NOTICE, AND MOTION FOR 

TRO/SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(Docs. 165, 169, 174, 180, 182, 183)

Plaintiff Bilal Ahdom (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Schaefer, Araich, Chen, Shittu, and Ashby for deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s (1) motion for a preliminary injunction against 

Defendant Ashby, (Doc. 165); (2) motion to take judicial notice of documents in support of his 

motion, (Doc. 169); (3) second request to take judicial notice of documents in support of his 

motion, (Doc. 174); (4) request for a temporary restraining order and supplement to his pending 

request for a preliminary injunction, (Doc. 180); and (5) third request to take judicial notice of 

documents in support of his motion, (Doc. 182). On September 14, 2016, following careful 

consideration of these filings and Defendant Ashby’s response, the Magistrate Judge issued 

Case 1:09-cv-01874-AWI-BAM Document 186 Filed 09/29/16 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

Findings and Recommendations that all of the aforementioned motions and requests be denied. 

(Doc. 183.) The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice 

that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 8.) On 

September 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 185.) 

This Court finds no merit to Plaintiff’s objections. 

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, including Plaintiff’s 

objections, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendation are supported by the record 

and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on September 14, 2016 (Doc. 183), 

are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Plaintiff’s motions and requests to take judicial notice of documents (Docs. 169, 

174, 182), are DENIED;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 165), is DENIED; and

4. Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and/or supplement to the 

pending motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 180), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01874-AWI-BAM Document 186 Filed 09/29/16 Page 2 of 2