Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00702/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00702-18/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREL L. SMITH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0702 MCE EFB P

vs.

KING, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner, without counsel, seeking damages for alleged civil rights

violations. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He claims that defendant King was deliberately indifferent to

his safety by releasing confidential information about plaintiff’s enemies. On May 25, 2006,

plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. He seeks

an order directing the law librarian, Mrs. Russell, to respond to his “paging request for cop[ies],

paper and case law.”

Only parties or non-parties with notice who are shown to be in active concert or

participation with defendants may be enjoined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. Zenith

Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). Mrs. Russell is not a party to

this action and plaintiff does not allege that she has acted in concert or participation with

////

Case 2:04-cv-00702-MCE -EFB Document 117 Filed 01/17/07 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

defendant King to violate plaintiff’s rights. In fact, plaintiff does not mention defendant King in

his motion. 

For these reasons, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s May 25, 2006, motion

for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 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.” Failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158

F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: January 17, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-00702-MCE -EFB Document 117 Filed 01/17/07 Page 2 of 2