Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00309/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00309-13/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

GREGORY ADONIS MURPHY, 

Plaintiff,

v.

KELSO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00309-LJO-JLT (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(Docs. 44, 49)

Plaintiff, Gregory Adonis Murphy, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 30, 2011. This 

action is proceeding on Plaintiff's claims in the First Amended Complaint for relief under section 

1983 against Defendants Allison, Enenmoh, and Metts for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's 

serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Docs. 17, 18.) The matter was 

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 

302.

On October 24, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which

recommended denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff was provided 

thirty days within which to file an Objection, with which he complied. (See Doc. 53.) 

Defendants filed neither an opposition to Plaintiff's original motion, nor objections to the 

Findings and Recommendations.

In his objections, Plaintiff argues that defense counsel in this case has violated his 

Case 1:12-cv-00309-LJO-JLT Document 56 Filed 01/05/15 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

"Federal Right to Privacy" by "circumventing the proper channels when it comes to Plaintiff's 

Legal Mail [sic]" because it was not delivered to him through the proper channels. (Id.) 

However, the fact of the matter remains that this Court only has jurisdiction over the parties in 

this action. Defense counsel is not a party to this action. However, as an officer of the court, 

defense counsel is requested to make every effort to ensure that documents they serve on Plaintiff 

are mailed to the correct address of the facility where Plaintiff is housed. Beyond that, it is up to 

the prison's mailroom staff, who are not parties to this action and are thus beyond this Court's 

jurisdiction, to ensure that it is delivered to Plaintiff via "proper channels." To facilitate this, a 

copy of this order and Plaintiff's motion to the Warden's office and to the Litigation Coordinator 

at Valley State Prison in Chowchilla via facsimile transfer that they might be made aware of 

Plaintiff's concerns regarding the handling of his legal mail. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 24, 2014, is adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, filed September 4, 2014, is 

DENIED, without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction; and

3. The Clerk's office is directed to forward a copy of this order and Plaintiff's motion

(Doc. 44) to the Warden's office and to Litigation Coordinator at Valley State 

Prison in Chowchilla, CA via facsimile transfer that they might be made aware of 

Plaintiff's concerns regarding the handling of legal mail.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 31, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00309-LJO-JLT Document 56 Filed 01/05/15 Page 2 of 2