Harper v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 19

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Denial of Plaintiff's 16 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 07/03/2014. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 8/11/2014. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JASON S. HARPER,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,
Defendants.

CASE No. 1:14-cv-00115-AWI-MJS
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING
DENIAL
OF
PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION
FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(ECF No. 16)
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30)
DAYS

17
18

Plaintiff Jason S. Harper is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) On June

20

23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting preliminary injunctive relief. (ECF No. 16.)

21

Specifically, he sought an order directing unspecified officials at California Substance

22

Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran (CSATF) to find and issue

23

Plaintiff’s legal materials. (Id.)

24

This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim

25

against Defendants Huffman and Curry and First Amendment retaliation claim against

26

Defendant Rivero. (ECF No. 9.) The Court’s jurisdiction in this action is limited to those

27

legal claims and to the current parties to this action. Summers v. Earth Island Institute,

28

555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010).
1

1

Plaintiff may not, via this action, seek orders directed at remedying his current,

2

unrelated1 conditions of confinement. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at

3

969. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion be denied,

4

with prejudice.

5

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States

6

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. §

7

636(b)(1).

8

Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document

9

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”

10

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the

11

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

Within thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:

July 3, 2014

/s/

15

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

1

The Court is aware that Plaintiff may need his legal materials to litigate this case. However, there are no
current deadlines in this case that require action on his part at this time. Regardless, the pendency of this
action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general or over Plaintiff’s property.

2