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.

Andre Craver v. J. Hasty

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


March 1, 2012

ANDRE CRAVER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
J. HASTY, 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 motion for a preliminary injunction filed February 13, 2012. For the following reasons, this motion should be denied.

This action is proceeding on the original complaint filed May 18, 2011 as to defendants Hasty and Rayner. The complaint contains allegations regarding conditions at High Desert State Prison ("HDSP"), where defendants Hasty and Rayner are employed.

Plaintiff is incarcerated at California State Prison-Lancaster ("Lancaster"). In the pending motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff requests that the court order prison officials at Lancaster to permanently house him on single cell status.

No defendants are located at Lancaster. Defendants Hasty and Rayner are not authorized to order prison officials at Lancaster to grant plaintiff single cell status. In essence, plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief against individuals who are not named as defendants in this action, i.e., prison officials at Lancaster. 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).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (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).

20120301

© 1992-2012 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.