(PC) Walker v. Beshara ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY E. WALKER, No. 1:20-cv-1050-NONE-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. (Doc. Nos. 11, 12, 18, 23) 14 MINA BESHARA, ET AL., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Jeffrey E. Walker, a civil detainee proceeding pro se, initiated this action by 18 filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 30, 2020. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter 19 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 20 Rule 302. 21 On May 27, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 22 recommending that three of plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining order or an injunction 23 be denied. (Doc. No. 23 (recommending denial of Doc. Nos. 11, 12, 18).) These findings and 24 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections were to be filed 25 within thirty days. (Doc. No. 23 at 8.) Plaintiff filed objections on June 9, 2021. (Doc. No. 27.) 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 27 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the objections, 28 the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 1 | analysis. 2 Although plaintiff's objections take issue with some of the language or word choices 3 | employed in the pending findings and recommendations, plaintiff points to no errors in the legal 4 | analysis. Plaintiffs objections also state he is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, but 5 | identify no flaws with the magistrate judge’s reasoning. Indeed, the magistrate judge considered 6 | plaintiff's alleged PTSD. (Doc. No. 23 at 7.) The court further notes that no defendant has been 7 | served in this action and injunctive relief is therefore premature. See Zepeda v. U.S. Immigr. & 8 | Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an injunction 9 | if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may 10 | not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.”). 11 Accordingly, 12 1. The findings and recommendations, filed on May 27, 2021, are adopted in full; and 13 2. Plaintiffs motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Doc. 14 | Nos. 11, 12, 18) are denied. !S | Tris SO ORDERED. ~ 16 IJ AL Dated: _ September 21, 2021 Sea 1" S098 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28