Armstead v. Virga et al
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/17/12 recommending that 58 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER be denied. F&R referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections to F&R due within twenty one days. (Kaminski, H)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2: 11-cv-1054 JAM KJN P
TIM V. VIRGA, et al.,
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief
filed October 11, 2012. For the following reasons, this motion should be denied.
In the amended complaint, filed June 28, 2011, plaintiff alleges that he was
subjected to an improper eleven month race-based lockdown. In the pending motion for
injunctive relief, plaintiff alleges that medical staff have shown “complete indifference” to the
infection he has been fighting for two months. Plaintiff requests that he be taken to U.C. Davis
to see a physician.
The Supreme Court has held that a preliminary injunction is appropriate to grant
relief of the “same character as that which may be granted finally.” De Beers Consol. Mines v.
U.S., 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). A court may not issue an injunction in “a matter lying wholly
outside the issues in the suit.” Id. A court need not consider claims that were not raised in the
complaint. McMichael v. Napa County, 709 F.2d 1268, 1273 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1983). Additionally,
“a party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between
the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Devose v.
Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994).
The claims in plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief are unrelated to the claims
contained in the amended relief. For this reason, plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief should be
denied. Plaintiff may file a separate civil rights action challenging his claims regarding
inadequate medical care.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for
injunctive relief (Dkt. No. 58) 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-
one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
parties are 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: October 17, 2012
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?