Irvin v. Yates, et al.

Filing 27

ORDER ADOPTING 21 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING 12 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/27/2012. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

KAJAUNA KENYATTA IRVIN,

10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01940-GBC (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

JAMES A. YATES, et al.,

13

Defendants.

(Documents #12 & #21)
/

14
15

I.

16

Plaintiff Kajauna K. Irvin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

17

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 (the Religious Land Use and

18

Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”)). Plaintiff originally filed the action in the Fresno

19

County Superior Court as case No. 10 CECG 03023 on August 30, 2010. Defendants removed this

20

action on October 14, 2010. (Doc. 2.). On November 3, 2010, Plaintiff filed the first amended

21

complaint. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff’s claims arise from events that occurred while Plaintiff was at

22

Pleasant State Valley Prison at Coalinga, California. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff is currently housed at the

23

Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, in San Diego, California. (Docs. 19, 20). On December

24

28, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief to obtain certain religious accommodations.

25

(Doc. 12).

Procedural History

26

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

27

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 1, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

28

Recommendations herein which was served on Plaintiff which contained notice that any objections
1

1

to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. (Doc. 21). On October

2

3, 2011, Plaintiff filed objections.

3

II.

4

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

5

de novo review of this case. Plaintiff argues in his objections that his request for injunctive relief

6

is against the entire CDCR. However, since the CDCR are not parties to this action, the Court does

7

not have jurisdiction to order injunctive relief against the CDCR. Having carefully reviewed the

8

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by

9

proper analysis.

Conclusion and Order

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1.

12
13
14

The Findings and Recommendations entered on August 1, 2011 are ADOPTED in
full; and

2.

Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief is DENIED. (Doc. 12).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated:
0m8i78

January 27, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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