Modica v. Cox et al

Filing 24

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/18/2012 DENYING, without prejudice, plaintiff's 19 motion for preliminary injunction. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ANTOINE E. MODICA SR.,

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,

No. 2: 11-cv-2163 DAD P

Defendants.

ORDER

vs.
B. COX, et al.,

/
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a complaint filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
On July 31, 2012, the court screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint and

19

found that plaintiff’s amended complaint appeared to state a cognizable claims for retaliation

20

under the First Amendment against defendants Cox and Enrilich. Following plaintiff’s

21

submission of the required service documents, on August 27, 2012, the court ordered service of

22

plaintiff’s amended complaint on defendants Cox and Enrilich.

23
24
25
26

On August 1, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Therein,
plaintiff seeks a court order requiring the following:
Mrs. Killen ASP staff law librarian, and her supervisor Mr. Yanez
adult education superintendent stop harassing [plaintiff] while [he]
is using the law library for legal purposes. Also C/O Rios, Vitale
1

1

and all other of their successors in office, agents and employees
and all other persons acting in concert with them stop infringing
etc., with [his] legal and personal mail, and any other mail.

2
3

(Doc. No. 19 at p. 1.)

4

The court will deny plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff may

5

only seek injunctive relief against individuals who are named as defendants in this action. In

6

plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction pending before the court, he seeks an order against

7

named individuals who are not defendants in this action. The court is unable to issue an order

8

against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v.

9

Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969); Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv.,

10

753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal

11

jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to

12

determine the rights of persons not before the court.”).

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary

14

injunction (Doc. No. 19) is denied without prejudice.

15

DATED: September 18, 2012.

16
17
18
19

DAD:dpw
DAD1/prisoner-civil rights/modi2163.pi

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2