Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01897/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01897-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN HARDNEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1897 LKK GGH P

vs.

TOM CAREY, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction

filed October 7, 2005. Plaintiff requests that he be transferred from the maximum security

facility where he is now incarcerated (California State Prison-Lancaster) to a medium security

facility.

No defendants are located at California State Prison-Lancaster. Rather, all

defendants are located at California State Prison-Solano. Therefore, plaintiff is seeking

injunctive relief against individuals who are not named as defendants in this action. This court is

unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01897-LKK -GGH Document 28 Filed 11/02/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s October 7, 2005,

motion for a preliminary injunction be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: 11/01/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

hard1897.pi

Case 2:04-cv-01897-LKK -GGH Document 28 Filed 11/02/05 Page 2 of 2