(PC) Delphin v. Morley ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMY DELPHIN, No. 1:19-cv-01076-JLT-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 13 v. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 14 J. MORLEY, et al., INJUNCTION 15 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 51, 53) 16 17 On December 2, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 18 recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 51) be denied. 19 (Doc. No. 53.) The magistrate judge found the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the entities 20 or individuals against whom Plaintiff seeks an injunction, and that the claims in his motion are 21 unrelated to the claims at issue in this case. (Id. at 2-3.) The findings and recommendations were 22 served on Plaintiff and provided him 21 days to file objections thereto. (Id. at 3.) 23 After receiving an extension of time (Doc. No. 55), Plaintiff filed objections on January 7, 24 2022. (Doc. No. 56.) Plaintiff reiterates and elaborates on the claims raised in his motion, but he 25 does not meaningfully dispute that these claims are unrelated to those at issue in this case. (See 26 generally id.) 27 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 file, including Plaintiff’s objections, 1 | the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 2 | analysis. The claims in Plaintiff's motion stem from events at Kern Valley State Prison, whereas 3 | the claims at issue in this case stem from events at California Correctional Institution. (Compare 4 | Doc. No. 1 with Doc. Nos. 51, 56.) In other words, the the claims raised in the motion were not 5 || raised in the complaint. “Because the Court only has jurisdiction over the operative claims in the 6 | [c]lomplaint,” the Court lacks the authority to provide the injunctive relief that Plaintiff seeks. 7 | Smith v. Rios, No. 1:10-cv-1554-AWI-MJS, 2010 WL 4603959, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (citations 8 | omitted). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 9 1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 2, 2021 (Doc. No. 53) are 10 ADOPTED in full; 11 2. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 51) is DENIED; and, 12 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 13 proceedings. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 | Dated: _ January 14, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28