Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06658/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06658-9/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

P.L. VAZQUEZ,

Defendant. 

 /

1:04-cv-06658-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 53)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(Doc. 25 & 48)

Plaintiff, Ronald Adams (“plaintiff”), is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to

a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On May 8, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty (20)

days. On June 1, 2006, plaintiff filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

//

Case 1:04-cv-06658-LJO-DLB Document 79 Filed 08/28/06 Page 1 of 3
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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The

Magistrate Judge’s analysis applies to both Plaintiff’s February

24, 2006 and April 28, 2006 motions for temporary restraining

orders and preliminary injunctions. 

In the objections, Plaintiff argues that Jeanne Woodford is

the Director of the Department of Corrections, Director Woodford

is ultimately responsible for prison transfers, and Director

Woodford is named in Plaintiff’s amended complaint. As

explained by the Magistrate Judge, a federal court may issue an

injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and

subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. Zepeda v. United

States I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719 (9 Cir.1983). In addition, “to th

prevail on a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, the moving

party must establish a relationship between the injury claimed in

the motion and the conduct giving rise to the complaint.” Lebron

v. Armstrong, 289 F. Supp. 2d 56, 61 (D. Conn. 2003). Plaintiff

seeks a preliminary injunction for his transfer. His underlying

claim alleges violations of his First Amendment right of access

to the courts. As explained by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff’s

motion seeks to redress an injury unrelated to the underlying

action, and the preliminary injunction must be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 8, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

Case 1:04-cv-06658-LJO-DLB Document 79 Filed 08/28/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

2. Plaintiff’s motions for temporary retraining order and

preliminary injunction, filed February 24, 2006 and April 28,

2006, are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06658-LJO-DLB Document 79 Filed 08/28/06 Page 3 of 3