Craver v. Hasty et al

Filing 35

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/1/2012 RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's 33 motion for injuctive relief be denied. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections due within 21 days. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ANDRE CRAVER,

11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

No. 2: 11-cv-1344 MCE KJN P

J. HASTY, et al.,

14
15
16

Defendants.

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action

17

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary

18

injunction filed February 13, 2012. For the following reasons, this motion should be denied.

19

This action is proceeding on the original complaint filed May 18, 2011 as to

20

defendants Hasty and Rayner. The complaint contains allegations regarding conditions at High

21

Desert State Prison (“HDSP”), where defendants Hasty and Rayner are employed.

22

Plaintiff is incarcerated at California State Prison-Lancaster (“Lancaster”). In the

23

pending motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff requests that the court order prison officials at

24

Lancaster to permanently house him on single cell status.

25
26

No defendants are located at Lancaster. Defendants Hasty and Rayner are not
authorized to order prison officials at Lancaster to grant plaintiff single cell status. In essence,
1

1

plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief against individuals who are not named as defendants in this

2

action, i.e., prison officials at Lancaster. This court is unable to issue an order against individuals

3

who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research,

4

Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969).

5
6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for
injunctive relief (Dkt. No. 33) be denied.

7

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

8

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-

9

one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

10

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

11

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

12

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

13

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

14

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

15

DATED: March 1, 2012

16
17

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19

cr1344.57

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2