Aurelio M. Sepulveda v. Woodford et al

Filing 53

ORDER Adopting 48 Findings and Recommendation and DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 47 , signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/15/11. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

AURELIO MARTIN SEPULVEDA,

9
10
11

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01143-AWI-DLB PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

v.
JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

(DOCUMENTS #47 & #48)
12
13

Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Aurelio M. Sepulveda (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se

16

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary

17

injunction on February 16, 2011. Doc. 47. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

18

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

19

On February 18, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which

20

was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objection to the Findings

21

and Recommendations was to be filed within twenty-one days. Doc. 47. Plaintiff filed an Objection

22

to the Findings and Recommendations on March 10, 2011. Doc. 51.

23

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de

24

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and

25

Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

26

Plaintiff contends that the medical care he seeks as an injunction is directly related to this

27

action. However, this action concerns events that occurred at Corcoran State Prison, allegedly by

28

Defendant Wu. The Court does not have the jurisdiction to enforce any injunction on prison officials
1

1

at Ironwood State Prison or the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Zepeda

2

v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985).

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 18, 2011, is adopted in full; and

5

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, filed February 16, 2011, is denied.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
0m8i78

April 15, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2