Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01216/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01216-4/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

JAMES DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DR. RAMEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-01216-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 15)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. 14)

Plaintiff, James Davis (“plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil

rights action seeking relief under 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 3, 2006, 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 twenty (20) days. On

November 27, 2006, plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

//

Case 1:06-cv-01216-AWI -SMS Document 22 Filed 01/22/07 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

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. Plaintiff

filed an amended complaint on November 30, 2006, that has

superceded the original complaint. This complaint has not been

served on Defendants. “A federal court may issue an injunction

if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject

matter jurisdiction over the claim; it 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). Plaintiff is not entitled to

preliminary injunctive relief until such time as the court finds

that his complaint contains cognizable claims for relief against

the named defendants and the named defendants have been served

with the summons and complaint. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 3,

2006, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief,

filed October 27, 2006, is DENIED, without prejudice, as

PREMATURE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01216-AWI -SMS Document 22 Filed 01/22/07 Page 2 of 2