Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00045/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00045-1/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

MARK A. McKENZIE,

Plaintiff, CV F 05 0045 AWI WMW P

vs. ORDER RE MOTIONS 

(DOCUMENTS 6, 7 )

B. K. RUSH, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________/

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se. Pending before the court is

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and motion for emergency declaratory relief. 

Plaintiff’s claims in this complaint relate to a disciplinary process and a

classification process. It appears that plaintiff is challenging his classification status based upon

a violation of prison regulations. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendant Rush failed to

provide plaintiff with a 72 hour notification of his annual classification hearing, and failed to

allow plaintiff “to present and or review any supporting documentation in regards to what the

committee would be using as basis for the classification process.” Plaintiff contends that his

inmate recalculation placement score is not consistent with the institutional security level of his

housing.

Plaintiff also refers to a disciplinary proceeding. Specifically, plaintiff refers to a “CDC

115 guilt finding of 9-26-04.” Plaintiff alleges that there were due process violations at his

Case 1:05-cv-00045-AWI-WMW Document 10 Filed 03/31/06 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

2

disciplinary hearing as well as during the appeal process. As to his disciplinary process, plaintiff

alleges that defendant Lt. Escobar refused to consider exonerating evidence. Plaintiff alleges that

the guilt finding, rather than other evidence, was the basis for a decision at his Unit Classification

Committee hearing on October 12, 2004. Plaintiff alleges that he was frustrated in his ability to

pursue his appeal, as defendant Rush refused to provide plaintiff with the documents necessary to

pursue his appeal.

In his motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff requests an order “directing the Avenal State

Prison Administration to address and resolve the issues that are causing undue hardships to

plaintiff and family.” In his emergency request for declaratory relief, plaintiff seeks an

“appropriate and expedient judgment.”

Subsequent to plaintiff’s motions, the court entered an order dismissing the complaint for

failure to state a claim, and granting plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. The amended

complaint is due April 20, 2006. On March 20, 2006, plaintiff filed a notice of change of

address, indicating his release from prison.

The complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be

granted. Specifically, plaintiff had not alleged any facts indicating that named defendant

deprived plaintiff of a protectible interest. Plaintiff has not stated a claim as to any of the

defendants, and no defendant has been served or filed a response. The court must have personal

jurisdiction over the parties to be enjoined; it may not enjoin defendants not yet served or before

the court. Zepeda v. United States I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

injunctive relief and emergency declaratory relief are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00045-AWI-WMW Document 10 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 2