IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 18, 2012
ANDRE CRAVER, PLAINTIFF,
J. HASTY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
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 October 24, 2011 motion for a preliminary injunction. For the following reasons, this motion is denied.
In the pending motion, plaintiff alleges that he is being harassed by prison officials at Lancaster State Prison ("Lancaster") in retaliation for pursuing the instant action. In particular, plaintiff alleges that Lancaster prison officials tampered with plaintiff's mail orders of religious materials. Plaintiff also alleges that prison officials delayed in delivering to him defendants' motion to dismiss filed in the instant action.
This action is proceeding against defendants Hasty and Rayner, both located at High Desert State Prison ("HDSP"). Plaintiff alleges that defendants used excessive force when they sprayed him with pepper spray.
The court construes plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief as a motion for a protective order. Clearly, none of the requests addressed in plaintiff's motion seek dispositive relief on the merits of the complaint. The motion is addressed to procedures that the parties must utilize in litigating this case. See United States v. Flaherty, 668 F.2d 566, 586 (1st Cir. 1981): "A pretrial matter within the magistrate's jurisdiction would thus seem to be a matter unconnected to issues litigated at trial and not defined with respect to the time of trial." Neither do the rulings herein involve injunctive relief. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion may be handled by order.
No defendants in this matter are located at Lancaster. The court is generally not authorized to issue orders to entities or persons not parties to an action. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). For this reason, plaintiff's motion for a protective order addressing actions by prison officials at Lancaster is denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (Dkt. No. 30), construed as a motion for a protective order, is denied.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.