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.

Lees v. Felker

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 14, 2008

ALEXANDER LEES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
T. FELKER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his rights were violated while he was housed at High Desert State Prison.

On February 25, 2008, plaintiff sought injunctive relief, but the court recommended that this request be denied because plaintiff had been transferred to California State Prison--Corcoran and that, accordingly, those against whom plaintiff sought relief were not parties to the action. Docket No. 11. The district court adopted this recommendation. Docket No. 17.

Plaintiff has now filed another request for injunctive relief, again seeking an order to be issued against correctional officials who are not parties to this litigation. This is not appropriate: the court will not issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969).

Plaintiff suggests that his request is appropriate because correctional officials have retaliated against him after he received a court order issued in the instant case. This does not change the court's ruling. Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470 (8th Cir. 1994) (court will not restrain officials who allegedly retaliated for underlying lawsuit because there was no relationship between conduct described in the complaint and retaliatory actions).

Plaintiff has also requested the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff's previous requests were filed on January 28, 2008 and February 25, 2008. All requests were denied. In light of those orders and the court's determination that there has been no material change in the relevant factors, the instant request will also be denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief, interpreted as a request for a temporary restraining order (docket no. 24), is denied; and

2. Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel (docket no. 24 at 76) is denied.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

20081114

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



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.