Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Marshall v. Rain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 15, 2008

ROY T. MARSHALL, PETITIONER,
v.
SGT. RAIN, ET AL., RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. William McCurine, Jr. U.S. Magistrate Judge,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Doc. No. 123.]

I. INTRODUCTION

Roy Marshall ("Plaintiff"), a California state prisoner at California Medical Facility, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by prison officials at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility ("Donovan") in San Diego, California.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 1, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion for: (1) preliminary injunction and (2) extension of time to file an opposition to the Report and Recommendation.*fn1 [Doc. No. 123.] On May 6, 2008, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion. [Doc. No. 124.]

III. ARGUMENTS

1. Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiff asserts in his motion that the California Medical Facility and its librarian have failed to provide him with adequate library access. (Plaintiff's Mtn at 1:19-23.) Plaintiff contends that two hours of library access a week is insufficient to prepare legal briefs. (Id. at 1:27-2:2.) Plaintiff requests this Court order the California Medical Facility to grant him "10 days of continual law library access, from Monday through Friday, for two hour's [sic] each day or that plaintiff, be granted 20 hours of access to the law library within those 10 day's [sic]." (Id. at 2:11-15.)

2. Defendants' Opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Defendants argue that as a non-party to the instant civil rights lawsuit, the Court lacks the authority to issue a preliminary injunction against the California Medical Facility and its librarian. (Defendant's Opp'n at 3:1-11.) Defendants do not, however, oppose an extension of time for Plaintiff to file his objection to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Id. at 3:12-14.)

IV. DISCUSSION

As the Ninth Circuit has noted, "[a] federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), an injunction binds only the 'parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys' . . . ." Zepeda v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1984) (emphasis added); Fed. R. Civ P. 65(d)(2). Here, California Medical Facility is not a party to the instant suit, nor is it an officer, agent, servant, employee, or attorney of the Defendants. The Court has no authority to issue a preliminary injunction ordering non-parties, the California Medical Facility or its librarian, to provide Plaintiff with alternate or increased library access. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.

V. CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons,Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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