Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05079/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05079-16/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

HUNG D. NGUON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

C/O CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-05079-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 46)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Docs. 38, 40)

Plaintiff, Hung D. Nguon (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 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 December 13, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings

and Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and

which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30)

days. On December 23, 2005, Plaintiff filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

//

Case 1:04-cv-05079-LJO -SMS Document 62 Filed 05/31/06 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. The

objections do not provide a basis to not adopt the Findings and

Recommendations. 

The Magistrate Judge recommended the court deny Plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment. The court agrees that Plaintiff

has failed to meet his burden to show that there exists no

genuine issue as to any material fact, and he is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Adickes

v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). In denying

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment the court is not finding

the events as alleged did not occur or that Plaintiff’s case

should be dismissed. Rather, the court is simply finding

Plaintiff has not met his burden for summary judgment and, at

this time, the case will continue to proceed toward trial.

The Magistrate Judge also recommended the motion for a

preliminary injunciton be denied because it was unclear what

relief Plaintiff sought through a preliminary injunction. In the

objections, Plaintiff alleges that he needs a preliminary

injunction so that he can receive proper medical care. A new

theory cannot properly be raised in objections to Findings and

Recommendations. Greenhow v. Secretary of HHS, 863 F.2d 633,

638-39 (9th Cir. 1988), overruled on other grounds by United

States v. Hardesty, 977 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir.1992). In addition,

the court is unable to issue any order against individuals who

Case 1:04-cv-05079-LJO -SMS Document 62 Filed 05/31/06 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

are not parties to a suit pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp.

v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). Finally, “to

prevail on a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, the moving

party must establish a relationship between the injury claimed in

the motion and the conduct giving rise to the complaint.” Lebron

v. Armstrong, 289 F. Supp. 2d 56, 61 (D. Conn. 2003); see also

Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727

(9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it

has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter

jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the

rights of persons not before the court.”) Thus, preliminary

injunctive relief is not available based on the pending motion. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed December 13,

2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment, filed

November 21, 2005, and for preliminary injunctive relief, filed

November 22, 2005, are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05079-LJO -SMS Document 62 Filed 05/31/06 Page 3 of 3