(PC) Villegas v. Schulteis et al, No. 1:2009cv00493 - Document 65 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 54 ; ORDER Denying Requests for Temporary Restraining Orders 31 , 33 , 46 , signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/13/2010. (Verduzco, M)
Download PDF
(PC) Villegas v. Schulteis et al Doc. 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SANTOS A. VILLEGAS, 10 11 12 13 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00493-AWI-SKO PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS AND v. ORDER DENYING REQUESTS FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS L.L. SCHULTEIS, et al., Defendants. (Doc. 31, 33, 46, & 54) / 14 15 Plaintiff Santos A. Villegas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 16 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 17 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 On August 25, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations which 19 recommended that Plaintiff’s motions requesting preliminary injunctive relief be denied. (Doc. #54.) 20 The Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties contained notice that any objections 21 to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date on which 22 the Findings and Recommendations were served. Plaintiff filed untimely objections to the Findings 23 and Recommendations on October 25, 2010. (Doc. #63.) 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 305, this Court 25 has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court 26 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. In 27 addition to the reasons set forth by the Magistrate Judge, the undersigned also notes that Plaintiff 28 seeks an injunction against numerous guards and entities that are not party to the lawsuit. The court 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 does not have personal jurisdiction over guards and entities not party to this action. See Price v. City 2 of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (“A federal court may issue an 3 injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the 4 claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.”) 5 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 6 1. The August 25, 2010 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED in full; 7 2. Plaintiff’s motions requesting preliminary injunctive relief, filed on April 1, 2010, 8 April 9, 2010, and June 18, 2010, are DENIED. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: 0m8i78 November 13, 2010 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2