Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00551/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00551-3/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

JOHN E. WEST,

Plaintiff, CV F 07 0551 OWW WMW PC 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RE 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DOC 7)

JAMES YATERS,

Defendant.

Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief. Plaintiff, an inmate in

the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at Pleasant Valley

State Prison, is proceeding against correctional officials employed by the CDCR Pleasant Valley.

On February 12, 2008, an order was entered, dismissing the complaint for failure to state

a claim and granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. The complaint was dismissed

because Plaintiff failed to state a claim. Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint

consisted of a rambling narrative that failed to charge the individual Defendant with specific

conduct that constitutes a deprivation of a protected interest.

Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff seeks an order directing the CDCR to

stop denying the civil rights of Plaintiff and other inmates. Plaintiff does not point to specific

conduct by a specific individual that would cause him irreparable harm. Further, there is no

Case 1:07-cv-00551-OWW -WMW Document 13 Filed 02/21/08 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

operative pleading in this case. Plaintiff has not stated a claim as to any of the defendants, and

no defendant has been served or filed a response. The court must have personal jurisdiction over

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

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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion 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). Within thirty days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time waives all objections to the judge’s

findings of fact. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9 Cir. 1998). Failure to file th

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00551-OWW -WMW Document 13 Filed 02/21/08 Page 2 of 2