Opinion
Case No. 1:12-cv-00392-LJO-MJS (PC)
07-07-2015
COLIN M. RANDOLPH, Plaintiff, v. B. NIX, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(ECF No. 71)
CASE TO REMAIN OPEN
Plaintiff is a state proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought 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 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
On May 4, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and a recommendation to deny Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 71.) Plaintiff filed objections. (ECF No. 76.) Defendants filed no response.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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 objections do not raise an issue of fact or law under the findings and recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge concluded that injunctive relief was not available to Plaintiff because it was sought against individuals who are not parties to this action and over whom the Court therefore has no jurisdiction. Thereafter, Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint (ECF Nos. 73 & 74) and lodged a "First Supplemental Complaint" (ECF No. 75) naming some, but not all, of the individuals against whom he seeks preliminary injunctive relief. His objections to the findings and recommendation are based on his assumption that the First Supplemental Complaint will be filed and that new Defendants will be served and will appear. However, the Court has not ruled on the motion to amend or determined whether the lodged complaint may be filed, nor are the proposed new Defendants presently before the Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion must be denied. However, it will be denied without prejudice. In the event Plaintiff is permitted to proceed on his amended complaint and the proposed new Defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, he may renew his motion.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendation, filed May 4, 2015 (ECF No. 71), in full; andIT IS SO ORDERED.
2. Plaintiff's March 27, 2015 motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 68) is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated: July 7 , 2015
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE