(PC) Shikeb Saddozai v. Hosey

Opinion

SHIKEB SADDOZAI, No. 1:19-cv-01611-DAD-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS K. HOSEY, et al., (Doc. No. 3, 15) Defendants.

Plaintiff Shikeb Saddozai is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On April 29, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order be denied. (Doc. No. 15.) The findings and recommendations contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days after service. (Id. at 2.) On May 15, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file a second amended complaint and objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 16.) The magistrate judge granted the motion and provided plaintiff sixty (60) days from the date of that order to file objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 17.) On June 3, 2020, plaintiff filed his objections. (Doc. No. 18.) ///// In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. In plaintiff’s objections, he contends that between March 16 and May 4, 2020, the California State Prison-Corcoran law librarian supervisor, Ms. M. Lirones, engaged in retaliation and discrimination against him by repeatedly denying plaintiff access to the prison law library’s services and resources. (Doc. No. 18 at 1.) Plaintiff alleges additional denials of access to the law library on May 5, May 19, and May 20, 2020. (Id. at 2–5.) The undersigned declines to address plaintiff’s arguments relating to events that allegedly occurred after he filed his motion for a temporary restraining order on November 14, 2019, because they are irrelevant to the resolution of that motion and were not considered in the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. Moreover, the court notes that law librarian supervisor Lirones is not mentioned in plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, and plaintiff does not explain how Ms. Lirones’ alleged actions relate to the relief sought in his motion for a temporary restraining order. (See generally Doc. No. 3.) Finally, Ms. Lirones is not a named defendant in this action, and the court cannot enjoin persons who are not before the court. See Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.”); McCoy v. Stronach, No. 1:12- cv-000983-AWI-SAB (PC), 2020 WL 4200084, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 22, 2020) (citing Zepeda and denying plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order). ///// ///// ///// ///// ///// ///// 4:40 □□ □□□ MARE VE MMU i POO Veter TOY VM VI

Accordingly: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 29, 2020 (Doc. No. 15) are adopted; and 2. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 3) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. a " /}/ fP A; Dated: _ September 20, 2020 Sea 1" S098 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE