Benyamini v. Mendoza et al

Filing 109

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 5/8/2012 ORDERING that the 101 findings and recommendations filed 3/16/2012, are ADOPTED in full. Plaintiff's 100 "motion for emergency stay and preliminary injunction," filed on3/13/2012 is DENIED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ROBERT BENYAMINI,
Plaintiff,

11
12

vs.

13

No. CIV S-09-2602 LKK GGH P

MENDOZA, et al.,

14
15
16

Defendants.

ORDER
/

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

17

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

18

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

19

On March 16, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

20

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

21

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff

22

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

23

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule

24

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

25

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

26

by proper analysis. The magistrate judge cited Zenith Radio Corp., which provides that a district
1

1

court lacks authority to issue an injunction directed at an entity that is not a party before it.

2

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112, 89 S.Ct. 1562, 23 L.Ed.2d

3

129 (1969). There is an exception to this rule, which allows injunctions aimed at parties also to

4

bind non-parties “in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the

5

order by personal service or otherwise.” Id. The record does not indicate, however, that this

6

exception applies in the instant case.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 16, 2012, are adopted in full;

9
10

and
2. Plaintiff’s “motion for emergency stay and preliminary injunction,” filed on

11

March 13, 2012 (Docket No. 100), is denied.

12

DATED: May 8, 2012.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2