(PC) Felix v. Clandenin

E.D. California

(PC) Felix v. Clandenin

DecidedJune 10, 2024

Docket1:23-cv-00839

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Felix v. Clandenin ((PC) Felix v. Clandenin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PC) Felix v. Clandenin, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT EMERSON FELIX, Case No. 1:23-cv-00839-KES-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND 14 CLANDENIN, et al., PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE DENIED

15 Defendants. (Doc. 12)

16 17 Plaintiff Scott Emerson Felix is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to 19 California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners 20 within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 21 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened. See docket. 22 On September 18, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 23 recommendations that Plaintiff’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and 24 preliminary injunction be denied as Plaintiff fails to show a likelihood of success on the merits 25 and the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants as none of them have been served. 26 Doc. 12 at 3. The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice 27 that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. Id. at 3–4. No 28 objections were filed and the time to do so has passed. See docket. 1 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), the Court has conducted a de novo review of 2 | the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the findings and 3 || recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 | Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 18, 2023, Doc. 12, are adopted in 6 full; 7 2. Plaintiff's emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, 8 Doc. 9, is denied without prejudice; and 9 3. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings 10 consistent with this order. 11 12 13 | □□ □□ SO ORDERED. _ 14 Dated: _ June 9, 2024 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT EMERSON FELIX, Case No. 1:23-cv-00839-KES-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND 14 CLANDENIN, et al., PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE DENIED

15 Defendants. (Doc. 12)

16 17 Plaintiff Scott Emerson Felix is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to 19 California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners 20 within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 21 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened. See docket. 22 On September 18, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 23 recommendations that Plaintiff’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and 24 preliminary injunction be denied as Plaintiff fails to show a likelihood of success on the merits 25 and the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants as none of them have been served. 26 Doc. 12 at 3. The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice 27 that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. Id. at 3–4. No 28 objections were filed and the time to do so has passed. See docket. 1 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), the Court has conducted a de novo review of 2 | the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the findings and 3 || recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 | Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 18, 2023, Doc. 12, are adopted in 6 full; 7 2. Plaintiff's emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, 8 Doc. 9, is denied without prejudice; and 9 3. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings 10 consistent with this order. 11 12 13 | □□ □□ SO ORDERED. _ 14 Dated: _ June 9, 2024 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Felix v. Clandenin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-felix-v-clandenin-caed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack