Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01457/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01457-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

MAURICE HUNT,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. MATEVOUSIAN, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01457-AWI-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RE 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE 

RELIEF (ECF No. 10)

OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to Bivens 

v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This matter was referred to a United 

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) at U.S. 

Penitentiary Atwater, brings this civil rights action against defendant correctional officials 

employed by the BOP at Atwater. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have denied him his 

approved medical devices. 

On November 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an order from this Court 

directing the warden at USP Atwater to assist Plaintiff in accessing his legal property. Plaintiff 

contends that staff at USP Atwater require Plaintiff to walk a long distance while shackled in 

order to retrieve his legal property. Plaintiff further alleges that officials at USP Atwater refuse 

to provide him with a wheelchair. Also on November 30, 2015, an order was entered, granting 

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The motion was granted pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). The Court has not screened the original complaint, and 

Plaintiff has been granted leave to file a first amended complaint as a matter of right. 

Case 1:15-cv-01457-DAD-SAB Document 11 Filed 12/02/15 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

Plaintiff is advised that “a court has not power to adjudicate a personal claim or 

obligation unless it has jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.” Zenith Radio Corp. v. 

Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969); S.E.C. v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1138-39 (9th 

Cir. 2007). In this case, no defendant has yet made an appearance. Once Plaintiff files his first 

amended complaint, the Court will screen the complaint, and should Plaintiff state a claim 

against any of the defendants, it will direct the U.S. Marshal to effect service of process upon 

such defendants. Whatever merit there might otherwise be to Plaintiff’s request for injunctive 

relief, at the juncture the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants and it cannot issue 

an order requiring them to take any action. Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at 110; Ross, 504 F.3d 

at 1138-39.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive 

relief be denied as premature.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provision of Title 28 U.S.C. (b)(1). Within thirty 

(30) days after being served with these Finding and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and 

Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.2d F.3d 834, 

838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01457-DAD-SAB Document 11 Filed 12/02/15 Page 2 of 2