Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01344/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01344-28/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE CRAVER,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. HASTY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-1344 TLN KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 302.

On July 10, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 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.

/////

Case 2:11-cv-01344-SMM Document 119 Filed 08/22/14 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

The undersigned agrees with the magistrate judge that injunctive relief pursuant to the All 

Writs Act is not warranted. Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief concerns conditions at 

California State Prison-Lancaster (“Lancaster”). Lancaster is located within the jurisdiction of 

the United States District Court for the Central District of California. As Plaintiff has previously 

been advised, his claims regarding conditions at Lancaster should be raised in a civil rights action 

filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 10, 2014, are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for federal protection (ECF No. 108), construed as a motion for 

injunctive relief, is denied.

Dated: August 21, 2014

Case 2:11-cv-01344-SMM Document 119 Filed 08/22/14 Page 2 of 2