Opinion
2:20-cv-1665 JAM KJN P
06-25-2021
BILLY DRIVER, JR., Plaintiff, v. KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al., Defendants.
AMENDED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Introduction
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 24, 2021, the undersigned recommended that plaintiff's request for judicial notice (ECF No. 32), construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction, be denied. (ECF No. 37.) On June 3, 2021, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 42.)
Based on plaintiff's objections, the undersigned issues these amended findings and recommendations, again recommending that plaintiff's request for judicial notice, construed as a motion for injunctive relief, be denied.
Discussion
This action proceeds on plaintiff's amended complaint against defendants Bansal, employed at the California Medical Facility (“CMF”), and Dr. Rauf and May, employed at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”). Plaintiff alleges that these defendants violated the Eighth Amendment when they denied plaintiff's request to discontinue his prescription for the anti-psychotic medication Invega after plaintiff told defendants that he was not psychotic and that the medication caused plaintiff to suffer harmful side effects.
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”) in Stockton, California.
In the request for judicial notice, plaintiff alleges that CHCF prison officials denied him COVID-19 approved packages purchased for plaintiff by his mother. (ECF No. 32 at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that he needs the food in the packages because prison officials removed food from his food tray. (Id.)
On May 24, 2021, the undersigned recommended that plaintiff's request for judicial notice, construed as a motion for injunctive relief, be denied because it raised claims unrelated to the underlying claims on which this action proceeds. See DeBees Consol. Mines v. U.S., 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945) (in a preliminary injunction, it is appropriate to grant “intermediate relief of the same character as that which may be finally granted.”)
In his objections, plaintiff appears to argue that the claims raised in his motion for injunctive relief are related to the claims on which this action proceeds. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff argues that the anti-psychotic medication he is forced to take causes plaintiff to suffer hunger pains and impacts his metabolism. Plaintiff alleges that the psychiatrist will not order him extra food so plaintiff is forced to order food from food vendors.
As discussed above, plaintiff is housed at CHCF. No. defendants are located at CHCF. Therefore, plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against individuals who are not named as defendants in this action. This court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). For this reason, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff's request for judicial notice, construed as a motion for injunctive relief, be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs request for judicial notice (ECF No. 32), construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction, be denied.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).