Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05953/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05953-1/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

DONALD GLASS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

A.K. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-05953-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 13)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. 4)

Plaintiff, Donald Glass (“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 November 8, 2004, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the Findings

and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days. On

December 7, 2004 and March 4, 2005, respectively, plaintiff filed

a motion to extend time. On February 1, 2005 and March 28, 2005,

respectively, the court granted plaintiff an additional thirty

(30) days within which to respond. On April 11, 2005, plaintiff

filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.

Case 1:04-cv-05953-LJO-EPG Document 29 Filed 06/17/05 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

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. 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 (9th Cir.1983). In his motion,

Plaintiff has asked the court to order him transferred to another

institution. The first amended complaint, on which this action

is proceeding, concerns allegations that Defendants’ violated

Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment and First Amendment Rights. While

Plaintiff requests a transfer to avoid Defendants, the underlying

action does not concern Plaintiff’s transfer. Neither the CDC

nor prison officials responsible for transferring prisoners are

named as Defendants. The court is unable to issue any order

against individuals who are not parties to the suit pending

before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395

U.S. 100 (1969). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 8,

2004, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief,

filed July 12, 2004, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05953-LJO-EPG Document 29 Filed 06/17/05 Page 2 of 2