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 October 11, 2012. For the following reasons, this motion should be denied.
In the amended complaint, filed June 28, 2011, plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to an improper eleven month race-based lockdown. In the pending motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff alleges that medical staff have shown "complete indifference" to the infection he has been fighting for two months. Plaintiff requests that he be taken to U.C. Davis to see a physician.
The Supreme Court has held that a preliminary injunction is appropriate to grant relief of the "same character as that which may be granted finally." De Beers Consol. Mines v. U.S., 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). A court may not issue an injunction in "a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the suit." Id. A court need not consider claims that were not raised in the complaint. McMichael v. Napa County, 709 F.2d 1268, 1273 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1983). Additionally, "a party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint." Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994).
The claims in plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief are unrelated to the claims contained in the amended relief. For this reason, plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief should be denied. Plaintiff may file a separate civil rights action challenging his claims regarding inadequate medical care.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (Dkt. No. 58) 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).
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...