Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01344/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01344-5/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

ANDRE CRAVER,

Plaintiff, No. 2: 11-cv-1344 MCE KJN P

vs.

J. HASTY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s October 24, 2011 motion

for a preliminary injunction. For the following reasons, this motion is denied.

In the pending motion, plaintiff alleges that he is being harassed by prison

officials at Lancaster State Prison (“Lancaster”) in retaliation for pursuing the instant action. In

particular, plaintiff alleges that Lancaster prison officials tampered with plaintiff’s mail orders of

religious materials. Plaintiff also alleges that prison officials delayed in delivering to him

defendants’ motion to dismiss filed in the instant action.

This action is proceeding against defendants Hasty and Rayner, both located at

High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”). Plaintiff alleges that defendants used excessive force when

they sprayed him with pepper spray.

1

Case 2:11-cv-01344-SMM Document 31 Filed 01/19/12 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

The court construes plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief as a motion for a

protective order. Clearly, none of the requests addressed in plaintiff’s motion seek dispositive

relief on the merits of the complaint. The motion is addressed to procedures that the parties

must utilize in litigating this case. See United States v. Flaherty, 668 F.2d 566, 586 (1st Cir.

1981): “A pretrial matter within the magistrate’s jurisdiction would thus seem to be a matter

unconnected to issues litigated at trial and not defined with respect to the time of trial.” Neither

do the rulings herein involve injunctive relief. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion may be handled

by order. 

No defendants in this matter are located at Lancaster. The court is generally not

authorized to issue orders to entities or persons not parties to an action. See Zenith Radio Corp.

v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). For this reason, plaintiff’s motion for a

protective order addressing actions by prison officials at Lancaster is denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive

relief (Dkt. No. 30), construed as a motion for a protective order, is denied.

DATED: January 18, 2012

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cra1344.po

2

Case 2:11-cv-01344-SMM Document 31 Filed 01/19/12 Page 2 of 2