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
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?