Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00421/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00421-18/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERARD J. GUTIERREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. GUTIERREZ,

Defendant.

No. 1:13-cv-00421-DAD-SAB (PC) 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

DECLARATORY RELIEF OR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(Doc. Nos. 67, 72)

Plaintiff Gerard J. Gutierrez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. 

(Doc. No. 4.) On March 22, 2013, plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. (Doc. No. 1.) The action proceeds on the original complaint against defendant A. 

Gutierrez on plaintiff’s claims of excessive use of force and failure to protect in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff’s allegations stem from a prison disturbance that

took place at Pleasant Valley State Prison on January 4, 2012. (Id.) The matter was referred to a 

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

Now pending before the court is plaintiff’s August 31, 2015, motion for declaratory relief 

or preliminary injunction. Plaintiff is currently housed at High Desert State Prison in Susanville. 

He seeks an order directing Correctional Officer Davis, the mail officer at High Desert State 

Prison, to respond to plaintiff’s allegations of interference with his mail. (Id.)

Case 1:13-cv-00421-SAB Document 86 Filed 03/30/16 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

On December 14, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that plaintiff’s motion be denied. (Doc. No. 72.) The Magistrate Judge reasoned 

that plaintiff’s complaint is based upon claims of excessive use of force and failure to protect 

stemming from an incident that took place at Pleasant Valley State Prison, while his pending 

motion seeks relief against Correctional Officer Davis at High Desert State Prison for events 

outside the scope of the allegations in the complaint. (Id.)

The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that 

any objections had to be filed within thirty days. (Id.) On February 16, 2016, plaintiff filed

objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 78.) Plaintiff argues that “[a]lthough 

the court is limited to the parties before it, it may at the very least, inquire into allegations of

official misconduct – particularly, when, as in this case, Prison Guard Davis had made it known 

that he was conducting himself in such a manner because Plaintiff is suing the namedDefendant.” (Doc. No. 78, at 2.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds that the

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. The assigned 

magistrate judge properly found that the court does not have jurisdiction over prison officials at 

High Desert State Prison and that it is without authority to grant the preliminary injunctive relief 

which plaintiff seeks in this action. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 

100 (1969) (recognizing that the court cannot issue an order against individuals who are not 

parties to a suit pending before it); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.2007) (“Unrelated 

claims against different defendants belong in different suits[.]”). The named defendant A. 

Gutierrez is alleged to be employed at High Desert State Prison where plaintiff is currently 

incarcerated. (Doc. No. 67, at 2.)1

 

1

If, after exhausting his administrative remedies, plaintiff believes that he can in good faith 

allege that his mail is being interfered with by officials at High Desert State Prison in retaliation 

for his having brought the instant civil action based upon an incident that took place at Pleasant 

Valley State Prison, he may file a separate civil rights action in the Sacramento division of this 

court alleging such retaliation in violation of his rights under the First Amendment.

Case 1:13-cv-00421-SAB Document 86 Filed 03/30/16 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

Accordingly, the recommendation set forth in the findings and recommendations (Doc. 

No. 72) will be adopted and plaintiff’s motion for declaratory relief or preliminary injunction

(Doc. No. 67) will be denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00421-SAB Document 86 Filed 03/30/16 Page 3 of 3