(PC) Lamon v. Director, California Department of Corrections et al, No. 2:2006cv00156 - Document 53 (E.D. Cal. 2008)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/1/08 RECOMMENDING that pltf's 51 motion for preliminary injunction be denied. Motion referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., Objections to F&R due w/in 20 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
(PC) Lamon v. Director, California Department of Corrections et al Doc. 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BARRY LAMON, Plaintiff, 11 vs. 12 13 14 No. CIV S-06-0156 GEB KJM P DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. 15 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 17 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 12, 2007, he filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, 19 seeking an order directing the Clerk of the Court to mail copies of various documents to the 20 prison ombudsman and establishing a series of telephone calls between plaintiff and the court. 21 The gravamen of plaintiff’s motion is that prison officials at California State Prison-Corcoran are 22 interfering with his access to the courts in a criminal case pending against plaintiff in Kings 23 County and in Lamon v. Pliler, Civ. No. S-03-0423 FCD KJM P. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against individuals who are not named as 24 25 defendants in this action. This court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 2 100, 112 (1969). 3 4 Moreover, plaintiff has not demonstrated that his prosecution of the underlying action has been hampered by any of the activities he alleges have occurred. 5 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s December 12, 2007 motion for preliminary injunction (docket no. 51) be denied. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 8 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty 9 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 10 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 11 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 12 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 13 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 DATED: February 1, 2008. 15 16 17 18 19 2 20 lamo0156.56 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.