Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05626/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05626-3/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

DALE OWEN DUSTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, JR., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-5626-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Docs. 30 and 33)

Plaintiff Dale Owen Dustin (“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 June 16, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which

was 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 23, 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.

“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 Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985)

(emphasis added). The Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for failure

Case 1:03-cv-05626-AWI-LJO Document 36 Filed 07/01/05 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

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff is not entitled

to preliminary injunctive relief until such time as the court finds that his complaint contains

cognizable claims for relief against the named defendants and the named defendants have been

served with the summons and complaint. The court is unable to issue any order against individuals

who are not parties to a suit pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395

U.S. 100 (1969). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 16, 2005, is adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed June 13, 2005, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05626-AWI-LJO Document 36 Filed 07/01/05 Page 2 of 2