Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01097/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01097-8/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

DAVID D. HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAKEMAN, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 1097 LJO NEW (DLB) P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF

PURSUANT TO § 2254. (Doc. 23.) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DENY MOTION FOR RESTRAINING ORDER

(Doc. 20) 

 David D. Harris (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On April 3, 2007, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Emergency Relief Motion” in which he

complains that a previously filed Motion on February 22, 2007, and asking for an Order to Show

Cause for Restraining Order was not yet resolved. Because the Court now issues Findings and

Recommendations concerning that outstanding Motion, the Court will DENY the Motion for

Emergency Relief filed on April 3, 2007, as MOOT. 

In the Motion for Order to Show cause filed on February 22, 2007, Plaintiff requested a

transfer. Plaintiff states that he is being retaliated against for having filed grievances concerning

efforts by officials to hinder his ability to litigate his cases. Plaintiff asks that the officers be

reprimanded by the Court and that the Court order the officials to “cease and disist [sic].” 

The Court has conducted a cursory review of the Complaint which involves allegations

that Plaintiff is not receiving proper medical care for his mental health. 

The Court is unable to issue any order against individuals who are not parties to a suit

Case 1:05-cv-01097-SRB Document 24 Filed 04/12/07 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

pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). In the

instant action, Dr. Bakeman and Warden yates are named as the only Defendants. Plaintiff’s

Motion fails to link any alleged conduct or harm to parties named in this action. In addition,

Plaintiff’s Complaint neither contains a cause of action for similar permanent injunctive relief

nor contains claims relating to the same or similar issues. Because the federal court is a court of

limited jurisdiction, as a threshold matter, the court must have before it a case or controversy. 

Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 (1968). Absent such a case or controversy, the court has no

power to hear the matter. Rivera v. Freeman, 469 F.2d 1159, 1162-1163 (9th Cir. 1972). Since

the amended complaint in this case does not contain allegations raising issues similar to those

presented in the instant motion, there is no controversy present with respect to such issues and, as

a result, the court cannot address either the likelihood of success on the merits or whether there

are serious questions going to the merits of plaintiff’s claims. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court HERE BY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for Emergency Relief - that the Court review his Motion is DENIED

as moot; and 

the Court RECOMMENDS that the Motion for Order to Show Cause for Restraining

Order be DENIED. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United

States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(l). Within twenty (20) days after being served with these Findings and

Recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the court. The document should

be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The parties are

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: April 11, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01097-SRB Document 24 Filed 04/12/07 Page 2 of 2