Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06031/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06031-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

BRIDGET BRADFORD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, )

et. al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1: 04 CV F 6031 AWI DLB P 

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SPEEDY

REMOVAL 

[DOC # 25]

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro per and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. On October 21, 2005, plainitff filed a motion for “speedy

removal” seeking a transfer from Chowchilla Women’s Facility to Valley State Prison for the

preservation of her health and safety. 

“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 determine the rights of persons not

before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985)

Case 1:04-cv-06031-AWI-DLB Document 26 Filed 10/27/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

(emphasis added). Further, “a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that

should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” 

Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in

original).

Plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief until such time as the named

defendants have been served with the summons and complaint. At this juncture, plaintiffs’ motion

for preliminary injunctive relief is premature. Plaintiff may file another motion for preliminary

injunctive relief at a later stage. Plaintiff is cautioned that any further motions for preliminary

injunctive relief that are filed before defendants are served with process in this case will be denied as

premature.

Further, Plaintiff’s conclusory request for a transfer order is insufficient to support a motion

for preliminary injunctive relief. Although plaintiff submits her motion in the form of a declaration,

her declaration does not support a finding that plaintiff is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive

relief, filed October 21, 2005, be denied.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

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

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

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

1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 27, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06031-AWI-DLB Document 26 Filed 10/27/05 Page 2 of 2