Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06030/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06030-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY McKINNEY,,

Plaintiff, CV F 04 6030 OWW WMW P

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

 RE MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

 (DOC 14 )

CALIF. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Pending before the court is

Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief.

This is a civil rights action brought against defendant correctional officials for

their alleged denial of plaintiff’s civil rights. Specifically, plaintiff sets forth allegations that he

has been deprived of adequate outdoor exercise, and has been denied his request for a transfer to

federal custody.

On March 21, 2005, an order was entered, dismissing the original complaint with

leave to amend. The court noted that plaintiff’s allegations regarding his outdoor exercise were

not specific. On June 21, 2005, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. On August 10, 2005,

plaintiff filed the motion for injunctive relief that is before the court. 

Case 1:04-cv-06030-SMM Document 17 Filed 03/09/06 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

2

In his motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff refers to allegations of excessive force

by defendant Rainwater, as well as generalized allegations of restriction of access to the law

library. There are no allegations in the complaint or amended complaint regarding excessive

force. Further, the June 21, 2005, first amended complaint fails to address the concerns noted in

the March 21, 2005, order. Specifically, plaintiff has failed to allege specific facts that would

state a claim for relief for denial of outdoor exercise. Plaintiff has a current deadline of March 9,

2006, in which to file an amended complaint. 

The motion for injunctive relief sets forth claims and allegations not contained in

the operative complaint. Further, because plaintiff has failed to cure the defects noted in the

March 21, 2005, order, he has not established a likelihood of success on the merits. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be

denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06030-SMM Document 17 Filed 03/09/06 Page 2 of 2