Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-01796/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-01796-15/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIMMIE STEPHEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. MONTEJO,

Defendant.

No. 2:18-cv-1796 KJM DB P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 

parties participated in two settlement conferences as part of the court’s Alternative Dispute 

Resolution program. Because they were unable to reach a settlement, defendant Montejo will be 

ordered to file an answer to the second amended complaint. 

In a document filed here on January 24, 2020, plaintiff appears to be requesting two kinds 

of injunctive relief. (ECF No. 57.) First, plaintiff seeks an injunction preventing Warden Lozano 

from transferring him to another prison while he is undergoing treatment for cancer. Plaintiff is 

reminded that this action involves plaintiff’s treatment by Dr. Montejo for chronic kidney disease. 

Dr. Montejo is the only defendant remaining in this action. Preliminary injunctive relief is only 

appropriate to preserve the court’s power to render a meaningful decision on the merits. See 9 

Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2947 (3d ed. 2014). 

Plaintiff’s request does not relate to the merits of this action and is, therefore, not appropriate in 

Case 2:18-cv-01796-KJM-DB Document 59 Filed 02/03/20 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

2

this case. Further, injunctive relief is typically not appropriate against someone who is not a party 

to the case. See Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) 

(“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and 

subject matter jurisdiction over the claims . . . .”). The warden is no longer a party in this action. 

Plaintiff also states that Dr. Montejo and Warden Lozano have “failed to timely treat 

plaintiff’s cancer with diagnosed treatment of ‘radiation.’” He indicates he is seeking an 

injunction requiring Dr. Montejo and Warden Lozano to begin plaintiff’s radiation treatments 

immediately. Plaintiff again seeks injunctive relief unrelated to this action. This court will 

recommend plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief be denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Montejo file an answer to the 

second amended complaint within thirty days of the filed date of this order. 

Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief 

(ECF No. 53) be denied. 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, either party may file written 

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

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: January 31, 2020

DLB:9/DB/prisoner-civil rights/step1796.answ

Case 2:18-cv-01796-KJM-DB Document 59 Filed 02/03/20 Page 2 of 2