(PC) Cox v. Krpin

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ERNEST LEE COX, JR. No. 2:18-cv-2523 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS JOHN KRPIN, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20 Plaintiff has filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a motion for a preliminary injunction. (See ECF No. 18; see also ECF No. 18-1). The court considers the motions herein.

23 A review of the motions indicate that plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against individuals who are not named as defendants in this action. (Compare ECF No. 1 at 1-2 (defendants named in complaint), with ECF No. 18 at 1-2; ECF No. 18-1 at 1 (individuals named in temporary and preliminary injunction motions)). This court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., //// wOAOe 2.40 PRINS MVUVUTITIOCIN oe PNR VP tier FP AYO eve | 395 US. 100, 112 (1969); Aleknagik Natives Ltd. v. Andrus, 648 F.2d 496, 506 (9th Cir. 1980) | (citing Zenith Radio Corp.).

3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a District Court Judge be randomly | assigned to this action.

5 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motions for a temporary restraining | order and for a preliminary injunction, docketed May 26, 2020 (ECF No. 18; ECF No. 18-1), be | DENIED.

8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days after | being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with |} the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and | Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time | may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th } Cir. 1991).

15 | Dated: July 17, 2020 18 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE | piB.13 DB/ORDERS/ORDERS.PRISONER.CIVIL RIGHTS/cox2523.49a.of&r