govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-1_25-cv-00892-7

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 1  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
TERREL HOLMES, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
DAWLING,  
Defendant. 
Case No. 1:25-cv-00892 KES EPG (PC) 
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 
INJUNCTION  
Docs. 23, 37 
Plaintiff Terrel Holmes asserted the defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights 
while he was housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison 
(“CSATF”).  See Docs. 1, 23.  Plaintiff brought the present motion for preliminary injunction, 
seeking an order requiring the California Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections 
(“CDCR”) at CSATF “to preserve favorable video evidence of the incident on the 1st day of May, 
2025 in building d-2, including all body camera footage and close[d] circuit video footage in the 
day room and any subsequent video footage that captured the incident.”  Doc. 23 at 1.  Defendant 
filed a response confirming that CDCR provided defense counsel with the relevant video footage 
retained as part of the investigation into Plaintiff’s administrative grievance and that “[t]he video 
footage is and will continue to be preserved pursuant to the Office of the Attorney General and 
CDCR’s respective retention policies.”  Doc. 27 at 2.  Plaintiff did not file a reply. 
Thereafter, on August 7, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 
that the motion for preliminary injunction be denied.  Doc. 37.  The magistrate judge found that 
Case 1:25-cv-00892-KES-EPG     Document 42     Filed 09/28/26     Page 1 of 2
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 2  
 
 
Plaintiff did not meet “his high burden of proving that he is entitled to a preliminary injunction on 
his request for preservation of evidence.”  Id. at 4.  The magistrate judge recommended the 
motion for preliminary injunction be denied. Id. at 4–5.   
The Court served the findings and recommendations on the parties and granted thirty days 
to file any objections.  Id. at 5.  The Court informed the parties that a failure to file timely 
objections may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.  Id. (citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 
F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)).  No objections were filed, and the time to do so has expired. 
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court reviewed this matter de novo.  
Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the findings and recommendations are 
supported by the record and proper analysis.  The Court ORDERS: 
1. The findings and recommendations issued August 7, 2026 (Doc. 37) are 
ADOPTED in full.  
2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 23) is DENIED.  
 
 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
 Dated:     September 26, 2026       
     UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
 
 
Case 1:25-cv-00892-KES-EPG     Document 42     Filed 09/28/26     Page 2 of 2

Passage view · GavelSight