(PC)Williams v. Phillips, No. 1:2010cv00131 - Document 32 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 31 Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief be DENIED re 11 First Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/27/2011. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC)Williams v. Phillips Doc. 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SYLESTER WILLIAMS, 12 13 14 Case No. 1:10-cv-0131 AWI JLT (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED vs. BOBBY PHILLIPS, (Doc. 31) 15 16 Defendant. / 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was deliberately indifferent to his health 19 and safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On July 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a 20 transfer to a new institution of incarceration because the prison he is currently confined in has a known 21 reputation for harassing prisoners and because the law library is severely limited there. (Doc. 31.) 22 The Prison Litigation Reform Act places restrictions on injunctive relief. It states, in relevant 23 part: “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than 24 necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs.” 18 U.S.C. 25 § 3626(a)(1)(A). Here, Plaintiff’s allegations regarding harassment do not demonstrate a violation of 26 a federal right. Moreover, the issues Plaintiff now raises have no relation to the allegations on which 27 he is now proceeding in this action. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief should therefore be denied. 28 See Kaimowitz v. Orlando, 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997) (preliminary injunctive relief is not proper 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 for matters that are outside the scope of the lawsuit’s issues); Devose v. Harrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 2 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (same). 3 4 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s July 18, 2011 motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 31) be DENIED. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 6 to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served 7 with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file and serve objections with the Court. A 8 document containing objections should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 9 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 10 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: July 27, 2011 9j7khi /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
