The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Docs. 2, 11
On February 10, 2012, Plaintiff Daniel W. Womack ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging claims arising at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, Corcoran ("CSATF"). Doc. 1.*fn1 On the same date, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, alleging the defendants from CSATF violated his right to receive catalogs in the mail. Doc. 2. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On May 15, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations, recommending to deny Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. Doc. 11. On September 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed Objections. Doc. 12.
The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general who are not parties to this action. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 491-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court's jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. It is the past conduct of defendants which is at issue in this action, and the Court has no jurisdiction to issue any orders for Plaintiff's mail at Soledad. Thus, Plaintiff lacks standing in this action to obtain the relief sought. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559-61 (1992); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 24, 2012, are ADOPTED, in full; and
2. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, filed February 10, 2012, is DENIED.