(PC) Ardds v. Hicks et al, No. 1:2019cv01738 - Document 46 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING Findings and Recommendations 27 , 29 signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/28/2020.(Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTOINE L. ARDDS, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:19-cv-01738-SAB (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS D. HICKS, (Doc. Nos. 27, 29) Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Antoine L. Ardds is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On August 7, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that plaintiff’s third motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 27) be denied. 22 (Doc. No. 29.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice 23 that objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections on 24 August 18, 2020. (Doc. No. 32.) 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 26 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 27 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 28 by proper analysis. 1 1 In his objections, plaintiff fails to refute the basis for the magistrate judge’s findings and 2 recommendations. Specifically, plaintiff states that he has on several occasions reported officers’ 3 conduct, only for CSP-CDR officials to retaliate by informing the officers of the complaints 4 brought against them. (Doc. No. 32 at 2, 4.) Plaintiff further argues that there is evidence 5 supporting his claims of officers’ misconduct, but that he is unable to obtain these documents due 6 to being housed in a mental health crisis bed following his suicide attempts. (Id. at 4.) As the 7 magistrate judge noted, this action proceeds against defendant Hicks, whereas plaintiff’s motion 8 for preliminary relief attempts to restrain other prison officials who are not parties to this action. 9 (Doc. No. 29 at 3.) Thus, plaintiff’s requested relief cannot be granted because the court cannot 10 enjoin persons who are not before the court. See Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th 11 Cir. 1983) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties 12 and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of 13 persons not before the court.”); McCoy v. Stronach, No. 1:12-cv-000983-AWI-SAB (PC), 2020 14 WL 4200084, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 22, 2020) (citing Zepeda and denying plaintiff’s motion for a 15 temporary restraining order). 16 Accordingly: 17 1. 18 19 20 21 The findings and recommendations issued on August 7, 2020 (Doc. No. 29) are adopted in full; and 2. Plaintiff’s third motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 27) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 28, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
