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.

Brian Darnell v. High Desert State Prison

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


November 16, 2011

BRIAN DARNELL EDWARDS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's November 4, 2011 motion for a preliminary injunction. For the following reasons, this motion should be denied.

This action is proceeding on the amended complaint filed March 21, 2011 as to defendants Turner-Gambery, Cheney, Mitchell and Swingle. All defendants are located at High Desert State Prison ("HDSP"). Plaintiff alleges that he received inadequate medical care.

Plaintiff is housed at Kern Valley State Prison ("KVSP"). In the pending motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff alleges that prison officials at KVSP have harassed him for his legal activities by housing him with inappropriate cellmates. Plaintiff requests that he be single celled.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against individuals who are not named as defendants in this action, i.e., prison officials at KVSP. This court is unable to 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). For these reasons, plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief should be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 33) 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-one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 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).

20111116

© 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.