(PC) Driver v. Kern County Superior Court

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BILLY DRIVER, No. 2: 20-cv-1665 JAM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al., Defendants.

18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 160.) For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion be denied.

22 This action proceeds on plaintiff’s amended complaint against defendants Bansal, Dr. Rauf and Maya. (ECF No. 13.) Defendant Bansal is employed at the California Medical Facility (“CMF”). Defendants Rauf and Maya are employed at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”).

25 Plaintiff alleges that these defendants violated the Eighth Amendment when they denied plaintiff’s request to discontinue his prescription for the anti-psychotic medication Invega after plaintiff told defendants that he was not psychotic and that the medication caused harmful side effects, including chest pain, borderline diabetes, heart palpitations and gynecomastia.

1 On July 18, 2022, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address indicating that he was || transferred to the California Men’s Colony (“CMC”) in San Luis Obispo, California. (ECF No. || 159.) In the pending motion, filed July 18, 2022, plaintiff alleges that prison officials at CMC are | giving him Invega. (ECF No. 160.) Plaintiff requests that the court order CMC officials to stop || injecting him with Invega. (1d.)

6 No defendants are located at CMC. Therefore, plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against || individuals who are not named as defendants in this action. 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., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). For these reasons, plaintiff's motion for || injunctive relief should be denied.

11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for injunctive || relief (ECF No. 160) be denied.

13 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 fourteen days || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the || objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The || parties are 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).

21 | Dated: July 20, 2022 ” Aectl Aharon 23 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Dr1665.pi(5)