Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05381/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05381-13/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARENCE GIBSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

)

GEORGE GALAZA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV-F-00-5381 AWI WMW P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF

[Docs. #160]

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a 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 February 13, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations that

recommended Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be denied. The Findings and

Recommendations contained notice that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations

were to be filed within thirty days. On February 26, 2007, Plaintiff filed objections to the

Findings and Recommendations.

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

Case 1:00-cv-05381-GSA Document 198 Filed 03/20/07 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

analysis. In his objections, Petitioner does not address his requested injunction. Rather,

Plaintiff complains about various actions the remaining Defendant and his counsel have taken in

this action. There arguments are not grounds for an injunction. As explained by the Magistrate

Judge, a federal court is a court may only 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). At this juncture, the court does not have jurisdiction

to issue the injunctive order sought by Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on February 13, 2007 are ADOPTED in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief are DENIED (document #160).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-05381-GSA Document 198 Filed 03/20/07 Page 2 of 2