Miller v. Rufion, et al

Filing 162

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Intervene (Doc. No. 152 ), signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 8/23/2011. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

11

GERALD L. MILLER, JR.
CDCR #C-92075
Plaintiff,
v.

12

O. RUFION; MOONGA, R.N.,

10

13

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 08-1233 BTM (WMc)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO INTERVENE
[Doc. No. 152]

14
I. INTRODUCTION
15
This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Intervene re: Independent Laboratory
16
Analysis. [Doc. No. 152.] In his motion, Plaintiff claims a Dr. R. Kornbluth, at Calipatria State Prison has
17
been covering up [his] illness by using other prisoner’s blood work or not actually running the test that the
18
Plaintiff’s [sic] requested.” [Id. at 1:21-25.] Plaintiff further contends a Calipatria State Prison correctional
19
officer has been feeding him food contaminated with spit, body waste or body fluid. [Id. at 2:1-6.] Plaintiff
20
requests the Court order an independent laboratory analysis of his blood to help determine a course of
21
treatment for his illness. [Id. at 2:10-16.] After careful consideration, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as
22
discussed herein.
23
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND DISCUSSION
24
The court must have personal jurisdiction over the parties to be enjoined; it may not enjoin
25
defendants not yet served or before the court. Zepeda v. United States I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th
26
Cir.1983). Here, Calipatria State Prison, Dr. Kornbluth and the unidentified correctional officer noted
27
in Plaintiff’s motion are not parties to the instant action. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for an order
28
instructing Calipatria State Prison or its employees to conduct an independent laboratory analysis of
1

08-1233 BTM (WMc)

1

Plaintiff’s blood must fail for lack of jurisdiction. If Plaintiff has a concern regarding the current

2

medical treatment he is receiving at Calipatria State Prison, he must file an internal grievance with the

3

prison where he now resides and exhaust the administrative remedies associated with this new claim.

4

III.

5

CONCLUSION AND ORDER THEREON

6

The Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. Furthermore, it appears Plaintiff’s

7

administrative remedies have not been exhausted as to the subject matter addressed in Plaintiff’s Motion

8

to Intervene and are not at issue in the instant litigation. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Intervene is

9

DENIED.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 23, 2011

12
13

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.
U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court

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

08-1233 BTM (WMc)