(HC)Franklin v. Pfeiffer

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHRISTOPHER FRANKLIN, Case No. 2:22-cv-00825-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS UNKNOWN, ACTION 15 Respondent. (2) DENYING PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR CONTACT INFORMATION ECF No. 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 18 THAT PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE 19 DENIED 20 ECF No. 15 22 Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. On June 17, 2022, I ordered a response to the petition. ECF No. 10. On July 5, 2022, before respondent filed a response, petitioner filed a letter in which he claims that unspecified entities are using a “disease making technique” on him. ECF No. 15. Petitioner alleges that there is no food because all of it is “diseased,” and he requests that someone be sent to investigate the prison. Id. I construe this letter as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief.

1 Separately, petitioner has filed a request for contact information inquiring whether his habeas petition in this court has been denied. ECF No. 16.

3 As to petitioner’s petition in this court, it has not been denied. Respondent’s time to file a response has not yet expired, and the petition will not be adjudicated until then. His request for contact information is, therefore, denied.

6 As to petitioner’s request for preliminary injunctive relief, he has not addressed any of the factors set forth in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008), and his request should be denied on that basis alone. More fundamentally, petitioner has provided no evidentiary support for his outlandish claims. Given that obtaining a preliminary injunction requires the proponent to carry a heavy burden, this request must be denied. Id. at 22 (describing a preliminary injunction as “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief”).

13 It is ORDERED that: 14 1. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action.

15 2. Petitioner’s request for contact information, ECF No. 16, is DENIED.

16 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s request for injunctive relief, ECF No. 15, be DENIED.

18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the U.S. District Court Judge presiding over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen days of service of the findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections to the findings and recommendations with the court. That document must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The District Judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

| 1718 SO ORDERED.

3 ( — Dated: _ July 18, 2022 Jess Vote 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON ; UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ul