Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00759/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00759-7/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN CRUZ, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-00759-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 12)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(Docs. 2-1, 2-2, 8, 9) 

Brian Cruz (“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 72-302.

On July 13, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on Plaintiff and which

contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the Findings

and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty (20) days. On

August 14, 2006, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

//

Case 1:06-cv-00759-LJO-GSA Document 27 Filed 10/19/06 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

27

28

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, 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. As explained

by the Magistrate Judge, the issuance of an injunction operates

in personam and requires the same jurisdictional predicate as any

other in personam action--a basis for exercising personal

jurisdiction accompanied by adequate notice (service of a summons

and a complaint). Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S.

229 (1917). A federal court may issue an injunction if it has

personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter

jurisdiction over the claim. Zepeda v. United States I.N.S., 753

F.2d 719 (9 Cir.1983). Plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary th

injunctive relief until such time as the court finds that his

complaint contains cognizable claims for relief against the named

defendants and the named defendants have been served with the

summons and complaint. In addition, a review of the docket in

this action indicates that Plaintiff is not longer in custody at

the prison he sought to be removed from by his motions. When an

inmate seeks injunctive or declaratory relief concerning the

prison where he is incarcerated, his claims for such relief

become moot when he is no longer subjected to those conditions. 

Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995); Johnson v.

Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 13, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

Case 1:06-cv-00759-LJO-GSA Document 27 Filed 10/19/06 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

27

28

3

2. Plaintiff’s Motions for Temporary Restraining Order,

filed June 15, 2006 and July 6, 2006, are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00759-LJO-GSA Document 27 Filed 10/19/06 Page 3 of 3