Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Davis v. Schneider

United States District Court, C.D. California

June 25, 2019

Tim Davis
v.
D Schneider et al

          PRESENT: THE HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

          CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

         PROCEEDINGS (in chambers): ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN FBI INVESTIGATION [Docket No. 67.]

         This matter is before the Court on The Court on Plaintiff Tim Davis's ("Plaintiff") Motion to Request an FBI Investigation, filed on June 11, 2019 ("Motion"). Defendants C.O. Avalos and C.O. Junes (collectively "Defendants") opposed Plaintiff's Motion on June 18, 2019 ("Opposition"). T h e C o u r t found the matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). F o r t h e following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On January 3, 2018, Plaintiff, a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), sent a letter to the Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California about prison conditions. (See ECF. No. 1.) The Clerk directed Plaintiff to file a complaint using the district-approved form. (See ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff did so, constructively filing a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 8, 2018 ("Complaint"). (See ECF. No. 6.) Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Defendants Debbie Asuncion, M. Schneider, J. Asadorian, E. K.O., and Does 1-10[1] violated his rights under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl. 1, ECF No. 6.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants retaliated against him, assaulted and battered him, and harassed him, causing him mental and emotional distress. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks punitive and compensatory damages. (Id.)

         Because the Complaint asserted claims against correctional staff at a prison located in this District-California State Prison in Lancaster, CA-the case was transferred to the Central District of California. (ECF. No. 8.) On March 7, 2018, Plaintiff's case was assigned to Judge Ronald S.W. Lew and referred to Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. (See ECF No. 10.) Subsequently on March 12, 2018, the case was returned for random reassignment and sent to this Court for all further proceedings. (See ECF No. 11.)

         On March 15, 2018, Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott ("M.J.") dismissed a portion of Plaintiff's Complaint with leave to amend in order to correct deficiencies identified in her order. (See ECF No. 13.) On April 23, 2018, Plaintiff dismissed the case as to Defendants J. Asadorian, Debbie Asuncion, J. Curiel, M. Fordham, E. Ko, and M. Schneider. (See ECF No. 14.) On May 21, 2018, Plaintiff moved to be appointed counsel which the M.J. denied on Mat 25, 2018. (See ECF Nos. 19, 20.) On May 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery of all exculpatory evidence in his case which the M.J. denied on July 13, 2018. (See ECF Nos. 21, 23.) On September 11, 2018, Defendants C.O. Junes and C.O. Avalos moved for summary judgment which the Court denied on November 27, 2018. (See ECF Nos. 36, 54.) On October 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed another motion to compel which this Court granted in part and denied in part on November 27, 2018. (See ECF Nos. 41, 54.) On October 23, 2018, Plaintiff dismissed the case as to Defendants Bernal, Correa, M. Diaz, K. Estrada, Hates, A. Houston, Millegas, Olmeda, D. Schneider, and Young. (See ECF No. 47.) The sole remaining Defendants are C.O. Junes and C.O. Avalos.

         On June 4, 2019, Plaintiff moved to enjoin Defendants[2], their successors in office, agents, employees, and all other persons acting in concert and participation with them from conspiring and colluding to kill him, putting chemicals in his Jewish kosher meals, putting razor blades in his Jewish kosher diet meals, engaging in undue familiarity with inmates so they can attack him, and anything that put Plaintiff's personal safety in danger and violated his constitutional rights (the "Injunction Motion"). (Mot. 2, ECF No. 61.) Plaintiff also sought to be awarded a single cell for his personal safety. (Id.) On June 12, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff's Injunction Motion. (See ECF No. 68.)

         A. Instant Motion

         Plaintiff moves to request an FBI investigation because he claims that "kitchen and correctional staff" are opening and tampering with his kosher diet meals. (Mot. 2-3, ECF No. 67.) Plaintiff also claims that an Officer DeLa Torre sexually assaulted him on June 9, 2019. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff does not allege involvement by C.O.'s Avalos or Junes in his Motion, and the individuals he names are not parties to the action. (Mot. 2-5; see generally Compl., ECF No. 6.)

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard

         "The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order[3] is identical to the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction." Lockheed Missile & Space Co. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 887 F.Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (applying standard to a request for a temporary restraining order); see also Arcamuzi v. Cont'l Air Lines, Inc., 819 F.2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987) (applying same standard for a preliminary injunction). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that: (1) she is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.