(PC) Haney v. Adams et al, No. 1:2007cv01104 - Document 117 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending 93 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief be Denied, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 12/6/12. Referred to Judge Ishii; Thirty-Day Objection Deadline. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
(PC) Haney v. Adams et al Doc. 117 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MONTE L. HANEY, 10 CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01104-AWI-SMS (PC) Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED ADAMS, et al., (Doc. 93) 13 Defendants. THIRTY- DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff Monte Haney (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 17 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on July 18 5, 2007 and is proceeding on the First Amended Complaint, filed on July 16, 2008, for: (1) 19 excessive force on December 14, 2006, in violation of the Eighth Amendment by Defendants 20 J.G. Oaks and D. Silva; (2) deprivation of outdoor exercise from December 15, 2006 to March 21 15, 2007, in violation of the Eighth Amendment by Defendants R. Botello, M. Rickman, F. 22 Oliver, G. Torres, T. Cano; and (3) deprivation of outdoor exercise of African-American inmates 23 in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause by Defendants R. Botello, M. 24 Rickman, F. Oliver, G. Torres, T. Cano. (Doc. 1, Orig. C.O; Doc. 22, 1st A.C.; Doc. 28, Screen 25 O.; Doc. 30, Plntf Notice; Doc. 32, O Service.) 26 On April 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary 27 restraining order seeking: (1) to have his motion for summary judgment that he gave to prison 28 officials for mailing to this Court on January 11, 2012 filed in this case; (2) to require CSP1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Sacramento Warden Tim Virga to give Plaintiff “physical access to the law library;” (3) to 2 prohibit CSP-Sacramento prison officials from confiscating any of Plaintiff’s legal documents 3 that he sends to the Court; (4) to compel “CSP-Sacramento Warden Tim Virga to provide 4 Plaintiff with regular physical access to the court;” and (5) any “further relief that prohibits CSP- 5 Sacramento C-facility staff from any further confiscation of Plaintiff’s legal documents.” 6 Plaintiff’s motion must be denied both because the motion for summary judgment that 7 Plaintiff gave to prison officials for mailing to this Court on January 11, 2012 (Doc. 97) has been 8 received and filed which renders Plaintiff’s first request is moot and the Court lacks jurisdiction 9 as to Plaintiff’s remaining claims. 10 The Court’s jurisdiction in this action is limited to the legal claims and current parties to 11 this action. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009); Mayfield v. United 12 States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff may not, via this action, seek orders directed 13 at remedying his current, unrelated conditions of confinement. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; 14 Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s 15 motion (Doc. 93) be denied, with prejudice. 16 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 17 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 18 thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file 19 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 20 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 21 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 22 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: icido3 December 6, 2012 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.