Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05814/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05814-3/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

JOHNNY GRAY, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOVERNOR GRAY DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-03-5814 AWI SMS P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Docs. 51, 52, and 57 )

Plaintiff Johnny Gray (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

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 April 25, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein that

recommended Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief be denied. The Findings and

Recommendations were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any

objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed

objections to the Findings and Recommendations on June 6, 2005.

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.

In his objections, plaintiff states that the defendants in this action have harmed him and he is unable

to get medical care. "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

Case 1:03-cv-05814-AWI -SMS Document 62 Filed 06/17/05 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

27

28

2

persons not before the court." Zepeda v. United States I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir.1983). To

prevail on a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, the moving party must establish a relationship

between the injury claimed in the motion and the conduct giving rise to the complaint. Lebron v.

Armstrong, 289 F. Supp. 2d 56, 61 (D. Conn. 2003). Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction to

receive medical care, not be transferred, and not be subjected to new harms. The underlying claim

steams from alleged sexual assaults at North Kern State Prison in 2002. Plaintiff is no longer housed

at North Kern State Prison. As explained by the Magistrate Judge, preliminary injunctive relief is

designed to preserve the status quo regarding the substance of the case; it is not available for the

purpose of litigating new harms. As plaintiff’s motion seeks to redress possible new injuries, the

preliminary injunction must be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 25, 2005, is adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief, filed March 17, 2005, and March

25, 2005, are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05814-AWI -SMS Document 62 Filed 06/17/05 Page 2 of 2