Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01050/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01050-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY E. WALKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MINA BESHARA, ET AL.,

Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-1050-NONE-HBK

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. Nos. 11, 12, 18, 23)

Plaintiff Jeffrey E. Walker, a civil detainee proceeding pro se, initiated this action by 

filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 30, 2020. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter 

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

Rule 302. 

On May 27, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 

recommending that three of plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining order or an injunction 

be denied. (Doc. No. 23 (recommending denial of Doc. Nos. 11, 12, 18).) These findings and 

recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections were to be filed 

within thirty days. (Doc. No. 23 at 8.) Plaintiff filed objections on June 9, 2021. (Doc. No. 27.) 

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

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the objections, 

the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 

Case 1:20-cv-01050-JLT-HBK Document 35 Filed 09/22/21 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

analysis. 

Although plaintiff’s objections take issue with some of the language or word choices 

employed in the pending findings and recommendations, plaintiff points to no errors in the legal 

analysis. Plaintiff’s objections also state he is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, but 

identify no flaws with the magistrate judge’s reasoning. Indeed, the magistrate judge considered 

plaintiff’s alleged PTSD. (Doc. No. 23 at 7.) The court further notes that no defendant has been 

served in this action and injunctive relief is therefore premature. See Zepeda v. U.S. Immigr. & 

Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“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.”).

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations, filed on May 27, 2021, are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Doc. 

Nos. 11, 12, 18) are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2021 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01050-JLT-HBK Document 35 Filed 09/22/21 Page 2 of 2