(PC) Tevin L. Harris v. Valencia et al

Filing 65

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 5/20/21 ADOPTING in full 58 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 53 Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order. (Kastilahn, A)

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

No. 2: 19-cv-1751 JAM KJN P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER

R. VALENCIA, et al,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

18

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

19

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On April 09, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which

20
21

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

22

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days.1 Neither party has filed

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

In the pending motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff requested that the court prohibit his
custodians from transferring him to either California State Prison-Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”) or
California State Prison-Corcoran (“CSP-Cor”). The magistrate judge recommended that
plaintiff’s motion be denied because plaintiff sought injunctive relief against individuals not
named in this action, i.e., prison officials at North Kern State Prison (“NKSP”). The only
defendant in this action is R. Pleshchuck, employed at CSP-Sac. On April 12, 2021, plaintiff
filed a notice of change of address indicating that he was transferred to Salinas Valley State
Prison (“SVSP”). (ECF No. 59.) The court cannot issue orders against prison officials at SVSP
as they are not defendants in this action. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395
1

1
2

objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

3

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

4

ORDERED that:

5

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 09, 2021, are adopted in full;

6

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 53) is denied.

7
8
9

DATED: May 20, 2021

10

/s/ John A. Mendez
THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

U.S. 100, 112 (1969).
2