Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01751/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01751-13/pdf.json

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

---

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

WILLIAM D. FARLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. VIRGA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 13-cv-1751 KJN P

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief filed June 

10, 2014. (ECF No. 56.) For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends that this 

motion be denied.

This action is proceeding on the amended complaint filed November 13, 2013. (ECF No. 

11.) All defendants are located at California State Prison-Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”). Plaintiff is 

now housed at California State Prison-Corcoran (“Corcoran”). 

In the pending motion, plaintiff requests that he be provided with adequate medical and 

mental health care. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against individuals who are not named as 

defendants in this action, i.e., prison officials at Corcoran. This court is unable to issue an order 

against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. 

Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). For this reason, plaintiff’s motion for 

Case 2:13-cv-01751-WBS-KJN Document 65 Filed 07/21/14 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

injunctive relief should be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall appoint a 

district judge to this action; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 

56) be denied.

These findings and recommendations are 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, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are 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). 

Dated: July 18, 2014

Far1751.pi

Case 2:13-cv-01751-WBS-KJN Document 65 Filed 07/21/14 Page 2 of 2