Brown v. Naseer

Filing 30

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/18/14 recommending that plaintiff's 07/01/14 request for preliminary injunctive relief 16 - 19 be denied. Motion 16 through 19 referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M) Modified on 12/18/2014 (Plummer, M).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DEXTER BROWN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-0225 WBS CKD P

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SAHIR NASEER,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil

17
18

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His remaining claim arises under the Eighth Amendment for

19

denial of adequate medical care. He asserts that between September 29 and October 1, 2013,

20

while plaintiff was housed at the California Health Care Facility in Stockton, defendant Dr. Sahir

21

Naseer failed to adequately treat plaintiff’s hyperkalemia (potassium toxicity).
On July 1, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff asks

22
23

that the court make several orders directed at prison officials regarding his conditions of

24

confinement. There are two main problems with this motion. First, plaintiff’s remaining claim

25

concerns an isolated instance of what plaintiff alleges to be inadequate medical care occurring

26

over a year ago. Plaintiff does not challenge his ongoing care. Therefore the only appropriate

27

relief with respect to plaintiff’s claim at this point would be one for damages. Second, defendant

28

/////
1

1

Naseer has not appeared in this action so the court does not have jurisdiction to grant preliminary

2

injunctive relief.
While the court has the power under the “All Writs Act” (28 U.S.C. § 1651)1 to issue

3
4

orders necessary for the prosecution of this matter by plaintiff, plaintiff fails to show that exercise

5

of that power, in any respect, is warranted.2
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s July 1, 2014 request for

6
7

preliminary injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 16-19) be denied.

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

12

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

13

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

14

(9th Cir. 1991).

15

Dated: December 18, 2014

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21

1
brow0225.pi

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, “. . . all courts established by an Act of Congress may issue all writs
necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions . . .”
2

To the extent plaintiff believes his Constitutional rights have been violated, or are being
violated, apart from the allegations supporting plaintiff’s remaining claim or in ways that do not
prevent him from litigating this action, he should initiate a separate lawsuit.
2