Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01829/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01829-3/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

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARYL K. HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SPEARMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-01829-AWI-NEW-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 5)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. 3-1)

Daryl K. Howard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding

pro se 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 January 10, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that recommended Plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunctive relief be denied. The Findings and

Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice to

Plaintiff that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations

were to be filed within thirty (30) days. On February 12, 2007,

Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.

Case 1:06-cv-01829-ALA Document 19 Filed 03/22/07 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

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 court may issue an injunction only

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.” Zepeda v.

United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir.

1985) (emphasis added). In an Order issued with this Findings

and Recommendations, the court allowed Plaintiff to amend the

complaint. Plaintiff has now filed that amended complaint. 

Plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary 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. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 10,

2007, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief,

filed January 3, 2007, is DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01829-ALA Document 19 Filed 03/22/07 Page 2 of 2