Farley v. Virga et al

Filing 65

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/18/2014 ORDERING that the Clerk of Court shall appoint a district judge to this action; Senior District Judge William B. Shubb shall be ASSIGNED to this action. RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's 56 motion for injunctive relief be denied; Referred to Judge William B. Shubb; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these F & R's. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM D. FARLEY,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

No. 2: 13-cv-1751 KJN P
ORDER AND

T. VIRGA, et al.,

15

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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 motion for injunctive relief filed June

19

10, 2014. (ECF No. 56.) For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends that this

20

motion be denied.

21

This action is proceeding on the amended complaint filed November 13, 2013. (ECF No.

22

11.) All defendants are located at California State Prison-Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”). Plaintiff is

23

now housed at California State Prison-Corcoran (“Corcoran”).

24

In the pending motion, plaintiff requests that he be provided with adequate medical and

25

mental health care. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against individuals who are not named as

26

defendants in this action, i.e., prison officials at Corcoran. This court is unable to issue an order

27

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

28

Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). For this reason, plaintiff’s motion for
1

1
2
3
4
5

injunctive relief should be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall appoint a
district judge to this action; and
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No.
56) 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, any party may file written

9

objections 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.” Any response to the

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

Dated: July 18, 2014

15
16

Far1751.pi

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2