Lamon v. Director, California Department of Corrections et al

Filing 53

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/1/08 RECOMMENDING that pltf's 51 motion for preliminary injunction be denied. Motion referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., Objections to F&R due w/in 20 days. (Yin, K)

(PC) Lamon v. Director, California Department of Corrections et al

Doc. 53

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. / FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS BARRY LAMON, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0156 GEB KJM P IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 12, 2007, he filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking an order directing the Clerk of the Court to mail copies of various documents to the prison ombudsman and establishing a series of telephone calls between plaintiff and the court. The gravamen of plaintiff's motion is that prison officials at California State Prison-Corcoran are interfering with his access to the courts in a criminal case pending against plaintiff in Kings County and in Lamon v. Pliler, Civ. No. S-03-0423 FCD KJM P. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against individuals who are not named as defendants in this action. This court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not ///// 1
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). Moreover, plaintiff has not demonstrated that his prosecution of the underlying action has been hampered by any of the activities he alleges have occurred. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's December 12, 2007 motion for preliminary injunction (docket no. 51) be denied. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: February 1, 2008.

2 lamo0156.56

2