Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00679/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00679-3/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

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS M. COLT,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MENDOZA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-00679-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 11)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(Doc. 3)

Thomas M. Colt (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding

pro se in this 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 January 10, 2007, 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

January 29, 2007, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

//

/

Case 1:06-cv-00679-AWI -SMS Document 13 Filed 03/14/07 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

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. “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). Before a

federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a

defendant, there must be notice to the defendant, a

constitutionally sufficient relationship between the defendant

and the forum, and a basis for the defendant's amenability to

service of summons. Omni Capital International Ltd. v. Rudolf

Wolff & Co., Ltd., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987). 

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. 

 In addition, Plaintiff has not met the standard for injunctive

relief at this time. To the extent Petitioner cites to other

court decisions and documents finding overcrowding in state

prisons, these documents only provide proof of overcrowding, not

Eighth Amendment violations. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 10,

Case 1:06-cv-00679-AWI -SMS Document 13 Filed 03/14/07 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

27

28

3

2007, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,

filed June 2, 2006, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00679-AWI -SMS Document 13 Filed 03/14/07 Page 3 of 3