Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01274/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01274-4/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

JEFF HARNDEN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

A. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05-1274 AWI WMW P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 13)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Doc. 6)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil

rights action seeking relief under 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 August 10, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations that

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

Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections

to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. On September 1,

2006, Plaintiff filed objections.

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. The court is unable to issue any order against individuals who are not parties to a suit

Case 1:05-cv-01274-LJO-WMW Document 15 Filed 09/27/06 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

27

28

2

pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). As

explained by the Magistrate Judge, no complaint has been served on Defendants. "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 persons not before the

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

may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, there must be notice to the defendant, a

constitutionally sufficient relationship between the 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 ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 10, 2006, are ADOPTED IN

FULL; and,

2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Document #6) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01274-LJO-WMW Document 15 Filed 09/27/06 Page 2 of 2