Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01344/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01344-8/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE CRAVER,

Plaintiff, No. 2: 11-cv-1344 MCE KJN P

vs.

J. HASTY, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary

injunction filed February 13, 2012. For the following reasons, this motion should be denied.

This action is proceeding on the original complaint filed May 18, 2011 as to

defendants Hasty and Rayner. The complaint contains allegations regarding conditions at High

Desert State Prison (“HDSP”), where defendants Hasty and Rayner are employed.

Plaintiff is incarcerated at California State Prison-Lancaster (“Lancaster”). In the

pending motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff requests that the court order prison officials at

Lancaster to permanently house him on single cell status. 

No defendants are located at Lancaster. Defendants Hasty and Rayner are not

authorized to order prison officials at Lancaster to grant plaintiff single cell status. In essence,

1

Case 2:11-cv-01344-SMM Document 35 Filed 03/02/12 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

plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief against individuals who are not named as defendants in this

action, i.e., prison officials at Lancaster. This court is unable to issue an order against individuals

who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research,

Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for

injunctive relief (Dkt. No. 33) be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twentyone 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 response to the

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. 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). 

DATED: March 1, 2012

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

cr1344.57

2

Case 2:11-cv-01344-SMM Document 35 Filed 03/02/12 Page 2 of 2