(PC) Harper v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al, No. 1:2014cv00115 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Denial of Plaintiff's 16 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 07/03/2014. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 8/11/2014. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON S. HARPER, 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants. CASE No. 1:14-cv-00115-AWI-MJS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (ECF No. 16) OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS 17 18 Plaintiff Jason S. Harper is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) On June 20 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting preliminary injunctive relief. (ECF No. 16.) 21 Specifically, he sought an order directing unspecified officials at California Substance 22 Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran (CSATF) to find and issue 23 Plaintiff’s legal materials. (Id.) 24 This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim 25 against Defendants Huffman and Curry and First Amendment retaliation claim against 26 Defendant Rivero. (ECF No. 9.) The Court’s jurisdiction in this action is limited to those 27 legal claims and to the current parties to this action. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 28 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). 1 1 Plaintiff may not, via this action, seek orders directed at remedying his current, 2 unrelated1 conditions of confinement. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 3 969. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion be denied, 4 with prejudice. 5 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States 6 District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 7 636(b)(1). 8 Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document 9 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 10 Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 11 right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Within thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: July 3, 2014 /s/ 15 Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The Court is aware that Plaintiff may need his legal materials to litigate this case. However, there are no current deadlines in this case that require action on his part at this time. Regardless, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general or over Plaintiff’s property. 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.