(PC) Tevin L. Harris v. Valencia et al
Filing
58
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/8/2021 RECOMMENDING plaintiff's 53 motion for a temporary restraining order be denied. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TEVIN LEE HARRIS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2: 19-cv-1751 JAM KJN P
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
R. VALENCIA, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant
17
18
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining
19
order. (ECF No. 53.) For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that this motion
20
be denied.
This action proceeds on plaintiff’s third amended complaint against defendant R.
21
22
Pleshchuck, Ph.D., employed at California State Prison-Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”). Plaintiff
23
alleges that defendant Pleshchuck denied plaintiff’s requests for adequate mental health care in
24
violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Plaintiff was housed in the Los Angeles County Jail (“Jail”) when he filed the pending
25
26
motion. Court records reflect that plaintiff is now housed at North Kern State Prison (“NKSP”).
27
(ECF No. 54.)
28
////
1
1
In the pending motion, plaintiff requests that the court prohibit any Jail or California
2
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) officials from sending him to either
3
CSP-Sac or California State Prison-Corcoran (“CSP-Cor”). The grounds of this request appear to
4
be that if transferred to either prison, plaintiff will receive inadequate treatment for his mental
5
health conditions.
6
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against individuals who are not named as defendants in
7
this action, i.e., prison officials at NKSP, where plaintiff is now housed. As discussed above, the
8
only defendant in this action is defendant Pleshchuck, employed as a Ph.D. at CSP-Sac. This
9
court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it.
10
11
12
See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary
restraining order (ECF No. 53) be denied.
13
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
14
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
15
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
16
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
17
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
18
objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
19
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
20
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
21
Dated: April 8, 2021
22
23
24
25
26
27
Harr1751.57
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?