Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00886/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00886-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANNY BELL, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-886 FCD KJM P

vs.

J. MEJIA, et al., ORDER AND 

Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding in pro per with a civil rights action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a motion to compel discovery, a motion for an extension of

time in which to oppose summary judgment until discovery has been completed, and a motion

for a temporary restraining order.

I. Motion To Compel

Although the document is entitled “Motion To Compel Discovery,” plaintiff has

submitted a request to the custodian of records of the Folsom State Prison, seeking plaintiff’s

legal mail logs; certain of his grievances; materials for training employees on the handling of

legal mail; defendant’s disciplinary records; records of any misconduct by plaintiff; and

plaintiff’s central file, among other things. Defendant has opposed the motion, arguing that the

motion is vague and unsupported and seeks discovery from a third party. 

Case 2:06-cv-00886-TLN-CKD Document 41 Filed 12/06/07 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

2

As defendant observes, the motion does not comply with F. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1),

which requires a motion to state clearly what is sought and on what basis it is made; “a motion

giving no reasons has no effect.” Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v.

State of Wis., 957 F.2d 515, 516 (7th Cir. 1992). Moreover, a motion to compel under F.R.C.P.

37 presupposes that discovery has been sought and refused; plaintiff has provided no indication

that prior requests for the records have been refused. 

II. Request For An Extension Of Time

Because plaintiff has not made an adequate showing that he is entitled to

additional discovery, the request is not well taken.

III. Motion For A Temporary Restraining Order

Plaintiff alleges that correctional officer Lewis has become aware of the

underlying litigation and has begun to harass plaintiff as a result. He seeks an order ending the

perceived restrictions on his ability to litigate this action. However, plaintiff seeks injunctive

relief against individuals who are not named as defendants in this action. This court is unable to

issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith

Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s October 25, 2007 motion to compel discovery is denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s October 19, 2007 request for an extension of time is denied.

IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s November 13, 2007 motion for

injunctive relief be denied. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00886-TLN-CKD Document 41 Filed 12/06/07 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

3

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 twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The 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).

DATED: December 5, 2007. 

2

bell0886.mtc

Case 2:06-cv-00886-TLN-CKD Document 41 Filed 12/06/07 Page 3 of 3