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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN TRACEY HILL, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0775 GEB GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the amended complaint filed October 27, 2004, as to

Dr. Johnson only. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Johnson ordered that plaintiff receive

psychotropic medication involuntarily. As relief, plaintiff requests money damages only.

On July 13, 2005, plaintiff filed a supplemental complaint. In this pleading,

plaintiff alleges that defendant Dr. Frishman ordered that plaintiff receive psychotropic

medication involuntarily. The supplemental complaint does not contain plaintiff’s allegations

against defendant Johnson.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00775-RRB-GGH Document 29 Filed 08/19/05 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

2

Local Rule 15-220 requires pleadings to be complete without reference to other

documents. In other words, a complaint must contain all claims against all defendants. 

Plaintiff’s supplemental complaint does not comply with Local Rule 15-220 because it does not

contain plaintiff’s claims against defendant Johnson. Accordingly, the supplemental complaint is

dismissed.

On July 13, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. In this

pleading, plaintiff requests that defendants be ordered to stop medicating him with psychotropic

medication against his will. As stated above, the amended complaint on which this action is

proceeding does not contain a request for injunctive relief. Therefore, plaintiff cannot proceed

with a motion for injunctive relief going to the merits of his action. Accordingly, plaintiff’s July

13, 2005, motion for a temporary restraining order should be denied. If plaintiff files another

supplemental complaint, he may include a request for injunctive relief in addition to his request

for damages. Plaintiff may then re-new his motion for a temporary restraining order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s July 13, 2005,

supplemental complaint is dismissed;

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s July 13, 2005, motion for a

temporary restraining order 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 twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00775-RRB-GGH Document 29 Filed 08/19/05 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

3

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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: 8/19/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

hill775.ame

Case 2:04-cv-00775-RRB-GGH Document 29 Filed 08/19/05 Page 3 of 3