Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00173/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00173-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT P. BENYAMINI,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-0173 FCD EFB P

vs.

M. SHARP, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On June 9, 2009, the court found that the complaint stated a cognizable claim

against defendant Wolf but not as to any other defendant. The court gave plaintiff 20 days to

submit materials for service of process on defendant Wolf, or, alternatively, 30 days to file an

amended complaint to attempt to state cognizable claims against the additional defendants. The

times for acting passed and plaintiff did not submit the materials necessary to serve process, nor

did he file an amended complaint.

However, petitioner did file a request for counsel and a request to dismiss all defendants

except for defendant Martinez. The court addressed those filings by order dated December 17,

2009. The court also directed plaintiff to, within 21 days, “file a notice of dismissal pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(I), or [] comply with the June 9, 2009 order.” Dckt. No. 19 at 3. The

Case 2:09-cv-00173-FCD-EFB Document 21 Filed 02/09/10 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

2

court warned plaintiff that failure to comply with the order “will result in a recommendation that

this action be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).” Id. Once again, the times for acting

have passed, and plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

On December 23, 2009, however, plaintiff requested that the court grant a preliminary

injunction that would require correctional officers to take polygraph examinations. Dckt. No.

20; see also Dckt. No. 6, 7. Because of plaintiff’s failure to respond to the court’s orders,

however, the court has not been able to order service upon defendant Wolf or any other

defendant in this action. “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). Putting aside the merits of plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary

injunction, the court recommends that they be denied because no defendant has appeared in this

action and the court cannot issue an order against individuals who are not parties or are not

acting in concert with parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine

Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction, Dckt. Nos. 6, 7, 20, be denied; and

2. This action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

////

////

////

Case 2:09-cv-00173-FCD-EFB Document 21 Filed 02/09/10 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

3

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: February 9, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00173-FCD-EFB Document 21 Filed 02/09/10 Page 3 of 3