Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05381/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05381-9/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARENCE GIBSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

)

GEORGE GALAZA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV-F-00-5381 AWI WMW P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS FOR COUNSEL AND

FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

[Docs. #135 & #136]

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a 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 August 10, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations that

recommended Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief and counsel be denied. The Findings and

Recommendations contained notice that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations

were to be filed within thirty days. On August 23, 2006, Plaintiff filed objections to the

Findings and Recommendations.

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

Case 1:00-cv-05381-GSA Document 178 Filed 09/26/06 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

27

28 2

analysis. As explained by the Magistrate Judge, a federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction. 

Because of this limited jurisdiction, as a threshold and preliminary matter the court must have

before it for consideration a “case” or “controversy.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 (1968). If

the court does not have a “case” or “controversy” before it, it has no power to hear the matter in

question. Rivera v. Freeman, 469 F. 2d 1159, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 1972). “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.” 

Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis

added). At this juncture, the court does not have jurisdiction to issue the order sought by

Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s proposed preliminary injunction requests the court issues orders over staff at

High Desert State Prison who are not parties to this action. The court is unable to issue any

order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v.

Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). Thus, preliminary injunctive relief is not 

available. For the same reasons, the appointment of counsel to assist in litigating what occurred

at High Desert State Prison is not appropriate. 

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on August 10, 2006 are ADOPTED in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief

(Documents #135 & #136) are DENIED; and

3. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Document #135) is DENIED

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-05381-GSA Document 178 Filed 09/26/06 Page 2 of 2