Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00375/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00375-7/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAKA MUHAMMAD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0375 GEB GGH P

vs.

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. This action is proceeding on the amended complaint filed September 7, 2007. Plaintiff

alleges that prison officials are forcing him to sleep on contaminated mattress.

On December 10, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the court order his

removal from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) because

defendants are forcing him to sleep on the contaminated mattress. The court construes plaintiff’s

December 10, 2007, motion to be a motion for injunctive relief.

The court does not have the authority to order plaintiff’s removal from the CDCR. 

For this reason, plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief should be denied. However, plaintiff is

not prevented from filing a motion for injunctive relief requesting that defendants be required to

provide him with a mattress that is not contaminated. 

Case 2:07-cv-00375-GEB-GGH Document 20 Filed 01/11/08 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s December 10,

2007, motion to be removed from the CDCR, construed as a motion for injunctive relief, 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 twenty

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).

DATED: 01/11/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

muh375.56

Case 2:07-cv-00375-GEB-GGH Document 20 Filed 01/11/08 Page 2 of 2