(PC) Garraway v. Ciufo ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MITCHELL GARRAWAY, No. 1:17-cv-00533-DAD-GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING MOTION 14 JACQUELINE CIUFO, et al., FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 15 Defendants. (Doc. Nos, 79, 83) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Mitchell Garraway is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 in this civil rights action brought pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 20 (1971). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 21 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 This case now proceeds on plaintiff’s original complaint filed April 17, 2017, against 23 defendants Jacqueline Ciufo (Unit Manager), K. Miller (Corrections Officer), and Lieutenant J. 24 Zaragoza) for failure to protect plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 1.) On 25 July 23, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 79), which the 26 court construed as a request for preliminary injunctive relief. Therein, plaintiff seeks a court 27 order compelling officers at the United States Penitentiary (USP)-Coleman in Coleman, Florida to 28 refrain from tampering with his mail, remove his name from the “SIS/SIA” list, release his mail 1 | to him, permit him to purchase stamps during lockdowns, designate mailroom staff to make daily 2 | rounds to pick up his legal and special mail and enter it into a mail room log book in his presence, 3 | ensure that he receives daily showers during all lockdowns, and transfer him to a different BOP 4 | facility to prevent retaliation against him. (Doc. No. 79 at 4.) Defendants filed their opposition to 5 | plaintiff's motion on July 25, 2019. (Doc. No. 81.) 6 On July 29, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 7 | recommending that plaintiffs request for preliminary injunctive relief be denied because the 8 | court lacks jurisdiction over individuals who are not patties to this action. (Doc. No. 83 at 2-3.) 9 | The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any 10 || objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after service. (/d. a 3.) To date, no 11 | objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so 12 | has now passed. 13 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 14 | court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 15 | court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 16 Accordingly, 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 29, 2019 (Doc. No. 83) are adopted 18 in full; and 19 2. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief filed on July 23, 2019 (Doc. No. 20 79) is denied. 21 | IT IS SOORDERED. me □ Dated: _ October 30, 2019 a 4 A a anys 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28