Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01554/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01554-15/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

JOHN E. WEST,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN JAMES YATES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01554-OWW-SMS PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 36)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Docs. 30, 31, and 39)

Plaintiff John E. West(“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 February 1, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein

which was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the

Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed an objection on

February 15, 2007.

On September 18, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction prohibiting

prison officials from moving him from Pleasant Valley State Prison until his surgeries are performed

and he has recuperated for six weeks, and on November 22, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion seeking

a preliminary injunction mandating he receive double meals and daily showers. (Docs. 30, 31.)

Those motions are the subject of the Findings and Recommendations. In addition, on February 26,

///

Case 1:05-cv-01554-OWW -SMS Document 42 Filed 03/07/07 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

2007, plaintiff filed another motion seeking a preliminary injunction prohibiting prison officials from

interfering with plaintiff’s rights to due process and access to the courts. (Doc. 39.)

Plaintiff has yet to file a pleading that states any cognizable claims for relief. (Doc. 33.) As

such, there is no actual case or controversy pending before the Court, and the Court does not have

jurisdiction to issue any of the orders sought by plaintiff, assuming for the sake of argument that

plaintiff would be entitled to any preliminary injunctive relief. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461

U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for

Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City

of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006).

On two other occasions, the Court has denied plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive

relief on the same grounds as set forth in the Findings and Recommendations currently pending

before the Court. (Docs. 15, 17, 23, 29.) Plaintiff’s persistence in seeking relief in the face of the

Court’s orders setting forth the legal standard and explaining why plaintiff is not entitled to

preliminary injunctive relief at this juncture is abusive of the judicial process. Any further motions

for preliminary injunctive relief filed by plaintiff prior to a finding that plaintiff has stated a

cognizable claim for relief will be stricken from the record as premature, and plaintiff may be subject

to sanctions.

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 1, 2007, is adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief, filed September 18, 2006,

November 22, 2006, and February 26, 2007, are DENIED; and

///

///

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-01554-OWW -SMS Document 42 Filed 03/07/07 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

3. Any further motions for preliminary injunctive relief filed by plaintiff prior to a

finding that plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim for relief will be stricken from the

record as premature and may result in the imposition of sanctions against plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01554-OWW -SMS Document 42 Filed 03/07/07 Page 3 of 3