Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00912/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00912-3/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

EFREM STUTSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALLEN SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00912-AWI-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Docs. 8 and 12)

Plaintiff Efrem Stutson (“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 August 22, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein

which was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the

Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed an Objection to the

Findings and Recommendations on September 24, 2007.

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 andRecommendationsto be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

For the reasons explained by the Magistrate Judge, the Court does not have jurisdiction in this action

to grant the relief sought by plaintiff in his motion. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101,

103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006).

While the court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject

Case 1:07-cv-00912-AWI-GSA Document 15 Filed 10/03/07 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

matter jurisdiction over the claim; the court may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not

before the court. Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985)

(emphasis added). This action concerns Defendants’ alleged excessive force against Plaintiff. Yet,

the motion for injunctive relief requests medical treatment. To prevail on a motion for preliminary

injunctive relief, the moving party must establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the

motion and the conduct giving rise to the complaint. Lebron v. Armstrong, 289 F. Supp. 2d 56, 61

(D. Conn. 2003). Because Plaintiff’s medical care is not at issue in this action, the court cannot

enter an order granting injunctive relief to force non-parties to provide Plaintiff with future medical

care.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 22, 2007, is adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed August 6, 2007, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00912-AWI-GSA Document 15 Filed 10/03/07 Page 2 of 2