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.

Tony Asberry v. Matthew Cate

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


July 20, 2012

TONY ASBERRY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MATTHEW CATE, 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 injunctive relief filed June 11, 2012. For the following reasons, this motion should be denied.

When plaintiff filed this action on September 16, 2011, he was housed at California State Prison-Sacramento ("CSP-Sac"). This action is proceeding on the third amended complaint filed June 11, 2012. Plaintiff complains of conditions at CSP-Sac. All defendants are located at CSP-Sac.

On April 20, 2012, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address indicating that he is now incarcerated at the R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, California. In the pending motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff requests that he be provided with medical care at the R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against individuals who are not named as defendants in this action, i.e., prison officials at the R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility. 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).*fn1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 50) 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).


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.