Cordero v. Guzman et al

Filing 44

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 09/11/14 recommending that plaintiff's motion for judicial intervention 43 , construed as a motion for injunctive relief, be denied. MOTION 43 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RANDY CORDERO,

12
13
14
15

No. 2: 13-cv-1551 JAM KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

NICK GUZMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

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

18

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s September 5, 2014 motion for judicial

19

intervention. (ECF No. 43.) The undersigned construes the pending motion as a motion for

20

injunctive relief. For the following reasons, this motion should be denied.

21

This action is proceeding on the original complaint filed July 16, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) The

22

defendants are located at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) and California State Prison-

23

Corcoran (“Corcoran”).

24

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJDCF”). In

25

the pending motion, plaintiff alleges that he is being retaliated against by RJDCF officials for

26

pursuing the instant litigation.

27
28

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against individuals who are not named as defendants in
this action, i.e., prison officials at RJDCF. This court is unable to issue an order against
1

1

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

2

Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). For this reason, plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief

3

should be denied.1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for judicial

4
5

intervention (ECF No. 43), construed as a motion for injunctive relief, be denied.

6

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

7

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

8

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

9

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

10

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that

11

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

12

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

13

Dated: September 11, 2014

14
15

Cor1551.57

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The undersigned also observes that plaintiff’s allegations of retaliation are speculative.
2