Burnett

Burnett v. Dugan

Good Law
618 F. Supp. 2d 1232·2009 WL 1292980·2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38337
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMay 6, 2009Civil 08-1324 L (LSP)California2,538 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lorenz, J.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PURSUANT TO Fed. R.Crv.P. 65

I. Procedural History

Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for Emergency Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunctive Relief pursuant to Fed.R.CivP. 65 [Doc No. 25],

Ester Burnett (“Plaintiff’), is a prisoner proceeding in pro se and informa pauper-is pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Among the allegations in his Complaint, Plaintiff claims that prison officials at California State Prison, Centinela (“CEN”) have violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide him with adequate medical care and failing to accommodate his disability. The Court sua sponte screened Plaintiffs Complaint and initially dismissed it for failing to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief could be granted. (See Sept. 29, 2008 Order at 6-7.) Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on November 24, 2008 [Doc. No. 11]. The Court once again screened Plaintiffs FAC and found that the allegations in Plaintiffs FAC survived the sua sponte screening process required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (e)(2) and 1915A(b). (See Dec. 10, 2008 Order at 2, 2008 WL 5210539 at *1 (S.D.Cal.2008).) The Court further…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.