Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01485/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01485-6/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

RAYMOND WRIGHT,

Plaintiff, CV F 05 1485 OWW WMW P

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 RE MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

 (DOC 16 )

R. SHANNON, et al.,

Defendants.

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

Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. Plaintiff filed his motion on April 14, 2006. This action

proceeds on the November 21, 2006, amended complaint.

Before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, there

must be notice to the defendant, a constitutionally sufficient relationship between 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). Because defendants

have not yet been served with the complaint, the court lacks jurisdiction to enter any injunction

directed toward defendants.

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

injunctive relief be denied.

Case 1:05-cv-01485-BAM Document 36 Filed 12/26/06 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

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time waives all objections to the judge’s findings of fact. See

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9 Cir. 1998). Failure to file objections within the th

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 26, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01485-BAM Document 36 Filed 12/26/06 Page 2 of 2