(PC) Anderson v. Meier ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC ZACHARY ANDERSON, Case No. 2:15-cv-01148-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 v. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE DENIED 14 TIM VIRGA, et al., OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 15 Defendants. ECF No. 149 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, commenced this action against 18 defendant Villasenor, alleging that defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights by using 19 excessive force. ECF Nos. 23, 26.1 In August 2020, the court held a supervised settlement 20 conference, at which the parties reached a settlement agreement. ECF No. 139. After the parties 21 filed a stipulation of dismissal, the court dismissed this action with prejudice. ECF Nos. 144, 22 145. Notwithstanding the dismissal of this action, plaintiff has now filed a motion for injunctive 23 relief that alleges that Eric Sanchez, who was not a party to this case, arranged for plaintiff’s 24 transfer to a different prison and ignored his single cell status in retaliation for plaintiff seeking 25 26 27 1 The first amended complaint also alleged claims against three other defendants, ECF No. 28 23, but plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claims against those defendants, ECF Nos. 122, 124. 1 his settlement money.2 ECF No. 149 at 1. Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining Sanchez from 2 (1) transferring plaintiff to another prison and (2) housing plaintiff in a cell with other inmates. 3 Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. As a threshold matter, plaintiff’s claims have all been 4 dismissed, foreclosing the court from granting him the relief that he seeks. See Sherman v. City 5 of Davis, No. CIV S-04-2320-LKK-EFB (PS), 2008 WL 1899926, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 6 2008) (noting that a plaintiff cannot seek an injunction on a closed case). Furthermore, plaintiff’s 7 motion seeks relief that has no relation to the claims that were raised in this case. A motion for 8 preliminary injunction must relate to the allegations in the complaint. See Pac. Radiation 9 Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (2015) (“When a plaintiff seeks 10 injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority 11 to issue an injunction.”). 12 For these reasons, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary 13 injunction, ECF No. 149, be denied. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days of 16 being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with 17 the court, serving a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 18 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be 19 served and filed within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that 20 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 21 Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 22 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 24 25 26 27 2 Plaintiff claims that Eric Sanchez is a correctional counselor at California State Prison- 28 Sacramento. ECF No. 149 at 1-2. 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 | { Wine Dated: _ October 18, 2021 Q_—_—. 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28