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.

Toromi Washington v. Derrell G. Adams

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 14, 2011

TOROMI WASHINGTON,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
DERRELL G. ADAMS, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE DENIED

(ECF No. 20)

OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Toromi Washington ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 4, 2011, Plaintiff moved the Court to intervene to ensure that conditions at her current prison in Arizona were properly maintained. (ECF No. 20.) The Court construes this as a motion for injunctive relief.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the Court must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id.

Plaintiff's complaint in this action alleges that she was improperly transferred to a prison facility in Arizona. The Defendants are California Department of Correction employees who were involved in the transfer (or who failed to prevent the transfer). (ECF No. 19.) Inasmuch as any order relating to the conditions of Plaintiff's current confinement in the Arizona facility would not relate to the claim upon which her action proceeds, the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff.

Moreover, the Court has no jurisdiction to issue an order against individuals or entities that are not parties to this litigation. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969). The parties against whom Plaintiff seeks the injunction are not named Defendants in this action.

The Court therefore recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief be denied.

(To the extent that Plaintiff's Motion might be read as a motion to amend her complaint to add allegations related to the conditions of confinement at the Arizona facility, that too would be denied. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18 prohibits bringing unrelated claims against separate defendants in the same action. Plaintiff's complaints regarding the conditions of her current confinement are unrelated to the issue of the propriety of her transfer to that facility.)

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, the Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. Any such 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ci4d6

20110214

© 1992-2011 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.