Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05131/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05131-3/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

KENNETH SIERRA,

Plaintiff, CV F 01 5131 AWI WMW P

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 RE MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

 (DOCUMENTS 145, 157 )

CAL TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Pending before the court are Plaintiff’s

motions for injunctive relief and for a temporary restraining order.

Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections at CSP

Corcoran. This action proceeds against correctional officials at Mule Creek State Prison for

allegedly subjecting Plaintiff to unconstitutional conditions of confinement at that institution. 

Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief consist of a request that officials at Corcoran

provide Plaintiff with certain medical appliances. Plaintiff also levels unspecified allegations of

conduct regarding the inmate grievance process. Any allegations regarding conduct at CSP

Corcoran is beyond the scope of this litigation. Further, none of the individual identified in

Plaintiff’s motions are defendants in this action. The court must have personal jurisdiction over

the parties to be enjoined; it may not enjoin defendants not yet served or before the court. 

Case 1:01-cv-05131-AWI-GSA Document 178 Filed 08/10/06 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

Zepeda v. United States I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive

relief be denied.

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

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within thirty

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

objections with the court. Such a 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05131-AWI-GSA Document 178 Filed 08/10/06 Page 2 of 2