Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
David Arthur DePonte, a state prisoner, is suing Stohl and other defendants in the Eastern District of California for civil rights violations that he alleges occurred while he was housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at Corcoran State Prison (CSATF). His operative complaint is Doc. 24. Those claims remain allegations, and this order makes no findings about them.
DePonte then asked the court for injunctive relief, asserting that officials at Mule Creek State Prison are interfering with his mail (Doc. 35). The magistrate judge noted that this was his second motion for injunctive relief concerning his mail. The Court had denied the first after finding that it lacks jurisdiction over officials at Mule Creek State Prison, because the claims in the operative complaint concern defendants employed at CSATF (Doc. 27 at 3-4; see also Doc. 29).
The magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations on October 9, 2026 (Doc. 36). The order does not name the magistrate judge, and the findings themselves were not among the materials reviewed, so the account below relies on the district judge's summary of them.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge determined that the second motion fails for the same reason as the first: the Court lacks jurisdiction over Mule Creek officials because the operative complaint concerns CSATF defendants. The magistrate judge also found that the factors identified in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008), weighed against granting injunctive relief, and therefore recommended denial of the motion (Doc. 36 at 3-5). The district judge's order does not detail how each Winter factor was analyzed.
The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on DePonte and told him that objections were due within 14 days and that failing to object might waive his rights on appeal, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014). DePonte filed no objections, and the time to do so has passed. District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston stated that, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court performed a de novo review and concluded that the findings are supported by the record and proper analysis. She adopted them in full and denied the motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 35).
The relief is narrow. The magistrate judge's document was only a recommendation until the district judge adopted it, and the order is what denies the motion. It disposes of one request for interim relief about mail handling at Mule Creek. It does not dismiss the action, does not address the merits of the underlying CSATF claims, does not decide whether the mail allegations are true, and does not state whether the denial is with or without prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- A motion for a preliminary injunction aimed at officials of a different prison was denied because the Court found it lacks jurisdiction over those officials when the operative complaint concerns defendants employed at CSATF.
- Repeating a request that had already been denied for lack of jurisdiction, without curing the underlying defect, produced the same result.
- The magistrate judge's Winter analysis supplied an additional ground for denial, although the district judge's order summarizes it only briefly.
- Because DePonte filed no objections after being warned about waiver, the district judge adopted the recommendations in full after de novo review.
- The order denies interim relief only. It does not address whether DePonte may pursue his mail complaints in another proceeding.
Why It Matters
The order is not reported and carries no precedential weight beyond this case. Its value lies in showing how a court in the Eastern District treats a request for an injunction that reaches beyond the defendants and claims in the operative complaint. The Court looked to the claims actually pleaded, which concern CSATF employees, and declined to order relief against officials at a different institution.
Several matters remain open. The order does not say whether DePonte could amend his complaint, file a separate action, or use the prison grievance process to challenge the alleged mail interference, and it does not assess the mail allegations on their merits. Because DePonte did not object, the waiver warning the Court gave him about appellate rights also applies. Prisoners who change facilities during litigation should expect that interim relief against new officials may be hard to obtain within the original case, though this order reaches that result only on the record described in the district judge's summary.