Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00124/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00124-4/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

MARCUS R. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00124-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 13)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. 4)

Plaintiff Marcus R. Williams (“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 (30) days. On

July 7, 2005, Plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time

to file an amended complaint and objections. On July 22, 2005,

the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff a thirty day extension of

Case 1:05-cv-00124-AWI-SMS Document 20 Filed 09/13/05 Page 1 of 3
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

 Because the order was incorrectly docketed in part, the docket text does not reflect that the order granted

plaintiff an extension of time to file objections, as it should. 

2

time to file an objection.1 While Plaintiff filed an amended

complaint, Plaintiff did not file objections to the Findings and

Recommendations.

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. As explained by

the Magistrate Judge, a court may issue an injunction only “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). Before a federal court 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). The court has

dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A. Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint. 

Preliminary injunctive relief will only be available if the court

finds that Plaintiff’s amended complaint contains cognizable

claims for relief against the named Defendants and the standard

for preliminary injunctive relief has been met. 

Case 1:05-cv-00124-AWI-SMS Document 20 Filed 09/13/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

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 January 31, 2005, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00124-AWI-SMS Document 20 Filed 09/13/05 Page 3 of 3