Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00012/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00012-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

DANIEL EARLE BOYER, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

ANNE FRANCES PETERS, ) 

 )

Defendant. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-00012-AWI-SMS

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION TO DENY

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF (DOCS. 7, 9) 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an

action for damages and other relief concerning alleged civil

rights violations. 

On February 28, 2006, the Court ordered Plaintiff’s

complaint, which was filed on January 5, 2006, dismissed with

leave to file a first amended complaint by March 31, 2006.

Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. The initial

complaint concerned property matters that had been adjudicated,

or were being adjudicated, by a state court. Plaintiff filed a

motion for injunctive relief on February 27, 2006. 

On March 9, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and a

recommendation that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be

denied. The findings and recommendation were served on all

parties and contained notice that any objections to the findings

Case 1:06-cv-00012-AWI -SMS Document 11 Filed 03/29/06 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

and recommendations were to be filed within ten (10) court days

of the date of service of the order. On March 27, 2006, Plaintiff

filed objections. The undersigned has considered the objections

and has determined there is no need to modify the findings and

recommendations based on the points raised in the objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708 F.2d

452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo

review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

the Court finds that the report and recommendation are supported

by the record and proper analysis. “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). As explained by the Magistrate Judge,

the court has dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to

amend. Plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary injunctive

relief until such time as the court finds that Plaintiff’s

complaint contains cognizable claims for relief against the named

defendants.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendation filed March 9, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief IS DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00012-AWI -SMS Document 11 Filed 03/29/06 Page 2 of 2