Opinion
1:04-cv-06658-AWI-DLB-P.
August 28, 2006
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 53) ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (Doc. 25 48)
Plaintiff, Ronald Adams ("plaintiff"), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.
On May 8, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty (20) days. On June 1, 2006, plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The Magistrate Judge's analysis applies to both Plaintiff's February 24, 2006 and April 28, 2006 motions for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions.
In the objections, Plaintiff argues that Jeanne Woodford is the Director of the Department of Corrections, Director Woodford is ultimately responsible for prison transfers, and Director Woodford is named in Plaintiff's amended complaint. As explained by the Magistrate Judge, a federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. Zepeda v. United States I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719 (9th Cir. 1983). In addition, "to prevail on a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, the moving party must establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion and the conduct giving rise to the complaint." Lebron v. Armstrong, 289 F. Supp. 2d 56, 61 (D. Conn. 2003). Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction for his transfer. His underlying claim alleges violations of his First Amendment right of access to the courts. As explained by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff's motion seeks to redress an injury unrelated to the underlying action, and the preliminary injunction must be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 8, 2006, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,
2. Plaintiff's motions for temporary retraining order and preliminary injunction, filed February 24, 2006 and April 28, 2006, are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.