Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00392/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00392-13/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COLIN M. RANDOLPH,

 Plaintiff,

v.

B. NIX, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00392-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO DENY 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(ECF No. 71)

CASE TO REMAIN OPEN

Plaintiff is a state proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action brought 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 302 of the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

On May 4, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and a recommendation to 

deny Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 71.) Plaintiff filed 

objections. (ECF No. 76.) Defendants filed no response.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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 objections do not raise an issue of fact or law under the findings 

and recommendation.

Case 1:12-cv-00392-LJO-MJS Document 78 Filed 07/08/15 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

The Magistrate Judge concluded that injunctive relief was not available to Plaintiff 

because it was sought against individuals who are not parties to this action and over 

whom the Court therefore has no jurisdiction. Thereafter, Plaintiff moved to amend his 

complaint (ECF Nos. 73 & 74) and lodged a “First Supplemental Complaint” (ECF No. 

75) naming some, but not all, of the individuals against whom he seeks preliminary 

injunctive relief. His objections to the findings and recommendation are based on his 

assumption that the First Supplemental Complaint will be filed and that new Defendants 

will be served and will appear. However, the Court has not ruled on the motion to 

amend or determined whether the lodged complaint may be filed, nor are the proposed 

new Defendants presently before the Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion must be 

denied. However, it will be denied without prejudice. In the event Plaintiff is permitted to 

proceed on his amended complaint and the proposed new Defendants are subject to 

the jurisdiction of the Court, he may renew his motion. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendation, filed May 4, 2015

(ECF No. 71), in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s March 27, 2015 motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 68) is 

DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00392-LJO-MJS Document 78 Filed 07/08/15 Page 2 of 2