(PC) Harris v. Valencia et al, No. 2:2019cv01751 - Document 58 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/8/2021 RECOMMENDING plaintiff's 53 motion for a temporary restraining order be denied. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TEVIN LEE HARRIS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2: 19-cv-1751 JAM KJN P v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS R. VALENCIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 17 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining 19 order. (ECF No. 53.) For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that this motion 20 be denied. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s third amended complaint against defendant R. 21 22 Pleshchuck, Ph.D., employed at California State Prison-Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”). Plaintiff 23 alleges that defendant Pleshchuck denied plaintiff’s requests for adequate mental health care in 24 violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff was housed in the Los Angeles County Jail (“Jail”) when he filed the pending 25 26 motion. Court records reflect that plaintiff is now housed at North Kern State Prison (“NKSP”). 27 (ECF No. 54.) 28 //// 1 1 In the pending motion, plaintiff requests that the court prohibit any Jail or California 2 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) officials from sending him to either 3 CSP-Sac or California State Prison-Corcoran (“CSP-Cor”). The grounds of this request appear to 4 be that if transferred to either prison, plaintiff will receive inadequate treatment for his mental 5 health conditions. 6 Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against individuals who are not named as defendants in 7 this action, i.e., prison officials at NKSP, where plaintiff is now housed. As discussed above, the 8 only defendant in this action is defendant Pleshchuck, employed as a Ph.D. at CSP-Sac. This 9 court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. 10 11 12 See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 53) be denied. 13 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 14 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 15 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 16 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 17 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 18 objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 19 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 20 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 Dated: April 8, 2021 22 23 24 25 26 27 Harr1751.57 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.
