Franklin v. State of Nevada

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 10, 2025
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00291
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6 TERON FRANKLIN, Case No. 3:23-cv-291-ART-CSD 7 Plaintiff, vs. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 8 AND RECOMMENDATION OF STATE OF NEVADA, et al., MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 (ECF No. 20) Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiff Teron Franklin brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 12 Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, which allows Plaintiff to 13 proceed with Eighth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and First Amendment 14 claims (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff subsequently filed an emergency motion for 15 preliminary injunction, seeking an order to: (1) prohibit Defendants from selling 16 or disposing of any property which pertains to this matter; and (2) prohibiting 17 Defendants from harassing, disturbing the peace, or committing assault against 18 Plaintiff. (ECF No. 14.) After ordering a response from Defendants, Magistrate 19 Judge Denney issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending 20 denial of Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction without prejudice. (ECF No. 21 20.) 22 Magistrate judges are empowered to issue reports and recommendations 23 on dispositive issues, which district judges may “accept, reject, or modify, in 24 whole or in part.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Where, as here, neither party objects 25 to a magistrate judge's recommendation, the district court is not required to 26 perform any review of that judge's conclusions. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 27 150 (1985). Because Plaintiff has not objected, the Court conducts no review of 28 Judge Denney’s R&R and adopts it in full. 1 Judge Denney recommends denial of Mr. Franklin’s motion for preliminary 2 || injunction without prejudice on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to adequately 3 || demonstrate irreparable harm, and an insufficient nexus exists between the 4 || allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaint and the allegation in his motion for a 5 || preliminary injunction. Because this motion is denied without prejudice, Plaintiff 6 || is not precluded from filing another motion for preliminary injunction. The Court 7 || notes that to succeed on a motion for preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must 8 || allege specific facts which “clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, 9 || loss, or damage will result...” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). Additionally, there must 10 || be a connection between the allegations in his complaint and the specific facts 11 || forming the basis of his preliminary injunction. Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC 12 || v. Queens Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir 2015). A court can only 13 || grant a preliminary injunction where the relief requested it is of the same nature 14 || as the relief which could be granted finally in the case. Id. Where there is no 15 || connection, the Court notes that new assertions of misconduct can give rise to 16 || additional claims against a defendant - and may be brought in another action - 17 || even if they do not support a preliminary injunction. Id. 18 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation 19 || (ECF No. 20) is ADOPTED. 20 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (ECF 21 || No. 14) is DENIED without prejudice. 22 23 Dated this 10 day of February, 2025. 24 25 Ap losed Jon 26 ANNE R. TRAUM 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28