(PC) Driver v. Kern County Superior Court ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BILLY DRIVER, JR., No. 2: 20-cv-1665 JAM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. AMENDED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Introduction 19 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 20 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 24, 2021, the undersigned recommended that plaintiff’s request for 21 judicial notice (ECF No. 32), construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction, be denied. (ECF 22 No. 37.) On June 3, 2021, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF 23 No. 42.) 24 Based on plaintiff’s objections, the undersigned issues these amended findings and 25 recommendations, again recommending that plaintiff’s request for judicial notice, construed as a 26 motion for injunctive relief, be denied. 27 //// 28 ///// 1 Discussion 2 This action proceeds on plaintiff’s amended complaint against defendants Bansal, 3 employed at the California Medical Facility (“CMF”), and Dr. Rauf and May, employed at Kern 4 Valley State Prison (“KVSP”). Plaintiff alleges that these defendants violated the Eighth 5 Amendment when they denied plaintiff’s request to discontinue his prescription for the anti- 6 psychotic medication Invega after plaintiff told defendants that he was not psychotic and that the 7 medication caused plaintiff to suffer harmful side effects. 8 Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”) in 9 Stockton, California. 10 In the request for judicial notice, plaintiff alleges that CHCF prison officials denied him 11 COVID-19 approved packages purchased for plaintiff by his mother. (ECF No. 32 at 2.) Plaintiff 12 alleges that he needs the food in the packages because prison officials removed food from his 13 food tray. (Id.) 14 On May 24, 2021, the undersigned recommended that plaintiff’s request for judicial 15 notice, construed as a motion for injunctive relief, be denied because it raised claims unrelated to 16 the underlying claims on which this action proceeds. See DeBees Consol. Mines v. U.S., 325 17 U.S. 212, 220 (1945) (in a preliminary injunction, it is appropriate to grant “intermediate relief of 18 the same character as that which may be finally granted.”) 19 In his objections, plaintiff appears to argue that the claims raised in his motion for 20 injunctive relief are related to the claims on which this action proceeds. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff 21 argues that the anti-psychotic medication he is forced to take causes plaintiff to suffer hunger 22 pains and impacts his metabolism. Plaintiff alleges that the psychiatrist will not order him extra 23 food so plaintiff is forced to order food from food vendors. 24 As discussed above, plaintiff is housed at CHCF. No defendants are located at CHCF. 25 Therefore, plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against individuals who are not named as defendants in 26 this action. This court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit 27 pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). 28 For this reason, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s request for judicial notice, construed 1 | asa motion for injunctive relief, be denied. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs request for judicial 3 || notice (ECF No. 32), construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction, be denied. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 6 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 7 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 8 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 9 || objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 10 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 11 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 | Dated: June 25, 2021 i Aectl Aharon 14 KENDALL J.NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 Dr 665.56(2).ke 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28