Sullivant v. Spectrum Medical Services et al

Filing 137

ORDER denying 136 Motion for Restraining Order. Signed by Jeremiah C. Lynch on 5/29/2013. Mailed to Sullivant. (TAG, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
KEVIN RAYMOND SULLIVANT,

Cause No. CV 11-00119-M-JCL

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

SPECTRUM MEDICAL SERVICES,
NURSE PRACTITIONER JUDY
MUNSELL, and RAVALLI
COUNTY,
Defendants.
Pending is Plaintiff Kevin Sullivant’s Motion for a Restraining Order
against Spectrum, Inc. due to Conflict of Interest. Sullivant is seeking an order to
transport him from the Great Falls Regional Prison back to Montana State Prison,
alternatively an order requiring that he receive medical treatment from an outside
doctor not affiliated with Spectrum, Inc., and an order restricting his placement in
any institution or prison that has medical treatment provided by Spectrum or
Benifis Medical Services.
“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over
the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to
1

determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d
719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d) (providing that an injunction
binds the parties; the parties' officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and
other persons who are in active concert or participation with these people).
Sullivant is in the custody of the Montana Department of Corrections. Therefore,
where he is incarcerated and who provides his medical treatment would be
determined by the Montana Department of Corrections. The Department of
Corrections is not a party to this case. The motion must be denied.
Based on the foregoing, the Court issues the following:
ORDER
1. Sullivant’s Motion for a Restraining Order (Dkt. 136) is denied.
2. At all times during the pendency of this action, Sullivant SHALL
IMMEDIATELY ADVISE the Court and opposing counsel of any change of
address and its effective date. Failure to file a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF
ADDRESS may result in the dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
DATED this 29th day of May, 2013.

Jeremiah C. Lynch
United States Magistrate Judge
2