Peterich v. Dr. McGree et al

Filing 62

ORDER ADOPTING 57 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; denying 56 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 7/27/2016. Mailed to Peterich. (TAG, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BUTTE DIVISION

CV 15-65-BU-BMM-JCL

ROBERT PETERICH
Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

DR. MCGREE, ET AL.
Defendants.

Robert Peterich filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on June 20, 2016.
(Doc. 56). United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch entered Findings and
Recommendations in this matter on June 20, 2016. (Doc. 57 at 3.) Judge Lynch has
recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff’s “Verified Motion for Notice and
Verified Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Official Acts of Retaliation and
Interfearing [sic] with Access to Courts.” Id. at 2.
Neither party filed objections. When a party makes no objections, the Court
need not review de novo the proposed Findings and Recommendations. Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–152 (1986). This Court will review Judge Lynch’s
Findings and Recommendations for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).
1

The Court, as a general rule, cannot issue orders against individuals who
represent non-parties to a suit pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine
Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). Injunctions can bind only the parties; the
parties’ officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and other persons in
active concert or participation with any of the aforementioned. Fed. R. Civ. P. R.
65. The Ninth Circuit has rejected a claim for injunctive relief on behalf of parties
not before the court, even where the Court found Plaintiffs were entitled to
injunctive relief. Zepada v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727
(9th Cir. 1985).
Peterich has asked for an injunction to compel action from individuals who
are not parties or related to the parties in a manner designated by statute. Peterich
sought an order directed toward employees at Montana State Prison. Neither
Montana State Prison nor the individuals named in the motion are parties in the
underlying suit. Judge Lynch recommended that the Court deny Peterich’s claim
since none of the parties named in the motion are parties in the underlying suit.
The Magistrate Judge did not commit clear error in denying the Motion for
Preliminary Injunction. This Court adopts Judge Lynch’s Findings and
Recommendations in full.

2

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Peterich’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction is DENIED.
DATED this 11th day of July, 2016.

3