Farley v. Virga et al

Filing 76

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 9/22/2014 REMANDING the plaintiff's 56 Request for Injunctive Relief to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman for further consideration of whether an injunction directed to any of the named defendants could provide the plaintiff with the relief he requests. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
----oo0oo----

11
12
13

WILLIAM D. FARLEY,
Plaintiff,

14
15

CIV. NO. 2:13-1751 WBS KJN P
ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.

16
17

T. VIRGA, et al.,

18

Defendants.

19
----oo0oo----

20
21

Plaintiff William D. Farley is a state prisoner,

22
23

proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

24

§ 1983.

25

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Local General Order

26

No. 262, and Local Rule 302(c)(17).

27

his Complaint while incarcerated at California State Prison-

28

Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”).

This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Plaintiff initially filed

(See Pl.’s Compl. (Docket No. 1))
1

In

1

February 2014, he was transferred to California State Prison-

2

Corcoran (“CSP-Corcoran”).

3

(See Docket No. 25.)

On June 10, 2014, plaintiff moved for a preliminary

4

injunction, requesting that “defendants and the [California

5

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“C.D.C.R.”)]

6

medical and mental health services” provide him with certain

7

health care.

8

56).)

9

“defendants” and “all persons acting in concert or participation

(Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 1-2 (Docket No.

Plaintiff also requested an injunction preventing

10

with them” from, among other things, removing his wheelchair,

11

withholding certain property, and limiting access to the prison’s

12

law library.

13

Recommendations (“F&Rs”), the Magistrate Judge construed this

14

motion as directed against prison officials at CSP-Corcoran,

15

where plaintiff is currently housed.

16

65).)

17

CSP-Sac, the Magistrate Judge recommends denying plaintiff’s

18

motion for injunctive relief because plaintiff requests relief

19

from individuals who are not parties to this lawsuit.

20

2.)

21

(Id. at 1, 3.)

In his July 18, 2014, Findings and

(F&Rs at 1 (Docket No.

After finding that all named defendants are located at

Plaintiff timely filed an objection.

(Id. at 1-

(Docket No. 67.)

Courts can issue orders only against individuals who

22

are a party to the lawsuit pending before them.

23

Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969).

24

the extent that plaintiff requests an injunction directing

25

particular CSP-Corcoran officials to take or refrain from certain

26

actions, the court cannot grant such an order because none of the

27

defendants in this action work at CSP-Corcoran.

28
2

See Zenith Radio
To

1

The question remains, however, whether an injunction

2

directed to any of the named defendants could indirectly provide

3

plaintiff with some of his requested relief.

4

injunction not only binds the parties . . . but also those

5

identified with them in interest, in ‘privity’ with them,

6

represented by them or subject to their control.” Regal Knitwear

7

Co. v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 9, 14 (1945).

8

65(d)(2) (“[t]he order binds . . . the parties’ officers, agents,

9

servants, employees, and attorneys” who receive actual notice of

10
11

“[A] decree of

See Fed. R. Civ. P.

it).
Plaintiff names ten defendants in this case: T. Virga,

12

Warden at CSP-Sac, seven prison officials employed at CSP-Sac,

13

and Drs. Hamkar and Curren.

14

In his objections to the F&Rs, plaintiff points out that Drs.

15

Hamkar and Curren are employed by the C.D.C.R.

16

Objections at 2.)

17

defendants at CSP-Sac, (see Docket No. 44), it is not clear

18

whether these doctors work solely at CSP-Sac or provide services

19

at multiple prisons.

20

the authority to deliver mental and medical care to plaintiff at

21

CSP-Corcoran.

22

indicate the scope of their authority.

23

investigation into this matter, the court cannot conclude that an

24

injunction directed against Dr. Hamkar or Dr. Curren could not

25

provide the plaintiff with relief.

26

(See Pl.’s Am. Compl. at 2.)

(See Pl.’s

While service of process was directed to these

Nor is it clear whether these doctors have

Defendants’ location does not conclusively
Without further

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for

27

injunctive relief be, and the same hereby is, REMANDED to the

28

Magistrate Judge for further consideration of whether an
3

1

injunction directed to any of the named defendants could provide

2

the plaintiff with the relief he requests.

3

Dated:

September 22, 2014

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4