Williams v. Phillips

Filing 32

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 31 Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief be DENIED re 11 First Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/27/2011. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SYLESTER WILLIAMS,

12
13
14

Case No. 1:10-cv-0131 AWI JLT (PC)

Plaintiff,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE
DENIED

vs.
BOBBY PHILLIPS,

(Doc. 31)
15
16

Defendant.
/

17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was deliberately indifferent to his health

19

and safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On July 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a

20

transfer to a new institution of incarceration because the prison he is currently confined in has a known

21

reputation for harassing prisoners and because the law library is severely limited there. (Doc. 31.)

22

The Prison Litigation Reform Act places restrictions on injunctive relief. It states, in relevant

23

part: “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than

24

necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs.” 18 U.S.C.

25

§ 3626(a)(1)(A). Here, Plaintiff’s allegations regarding harassment do not demonstrate a violation of

26

a federal right. Moreover, the issues Plaintiff now raises have no relation to the allegations on which

27

he is now proceeding in this action. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief should therefore be denied.

28

See Kaimowitz v. Orlando, 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997) (preliminary injunctive relief is not proper
1

1

for matters that are outside the scope of the lawsuit’s issues); Devose v. Harrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471

2

(8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (same).

3
4

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s July 18, 2011 motion for
injunctive relief (Doc. 31) be DENIED.

5

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned

6

to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served

7

with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file and serve objections with the Court. A

8

document containing objections should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

9

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

10

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: July 27, 2011
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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