(PC) Kindred v. Allenby et al, No. 1:2014cv01652 - Document 83 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to deny 63 MOTION for a Court Order signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 3/30/2018. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due within 14-Days. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
(PC) Kindred v. Allenby et al Doc. 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RICHARD S. KINDRED, Plaintiff, 10 11 12 13 Case No. 1:14-cv-01652-AWI-MJS (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY MOTION FOR COURT ORDER v. (ECF NO. 63) CLIFF ALLENBY, et al., FOURTEEN DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE Defendants. 14 15 16 Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 17 rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against 18 Defendants Bigot and Bell on Plaintiff’s First Amendment free exercise claim. 19 20 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s January 5, 2018 motion for a court order directing the California Department of State Hospitals to adhere to its own directives. 21 The Court does not have jurisdiction to order injunctive relief which would require 22 directing parties not before the Court to take action. Zepeda v. United States Immigration 23 & Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an 24 injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction 25 over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the 26 court.”). Accordingly, the Court has no power to issue an order directed at the 27 Department of State Hospitals or Coalinga State Hospital. 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Additionally, it is generally only appropriate to grant a preliminary injunction for 2 “intermediate relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally.” De 3 Beers Consol. Mines v. U.S., 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945); see Johnson v. Couturier, 572 4 F.3d 1067, 1084 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that preliminary injunction at issue did not 5 deal with a wholly unrelated matter). A court should not issue an injunction when the 6 relief sought is not of the same character, and the injunction deals with a matter lying 7 wholly outside the issues in the underlying action. De Beers, 325 U.S. at 220. Here, 8 Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief regarding state regulations and directives that pertain to 9 copying, postage, and legal mail. The underlying claims in this action relate to Plaintiff’s 10 11 12 exercise of his religious beliefs. Plaintiff’s request is outside the scope of this action. Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for court order be DENIED. 13 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States 14 District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. 15 § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and 16 recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the Court. The document 17 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” 18 A party may respond to another party’s objections by filing a response within fourteen 19 (14) days after being served with a copy of that party’s objections. The parties are 20 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of 21 rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 22 v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 30, 2018 /s/ 26 Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 2