1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE CONRADO PEREZ, No. 2:25-cv-3172 TLN CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ROBERT RUDAS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 18 to

. For the following reasons, no further orders will issue addressing the 19 pleading filed by plaintiff on December 4, 2025 docketed as “Notice by Jose Conrado Perez re 20 health conditions.” (ECF No. 16.) 21 This action proceeds on plaintiff’s complaint filed October 31, 2025 against defendant Dr. 22 Robert Rudas employed at Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”). (ECF No. 17 at 1.) Plaintiff 23 claims that defendant Rudas provided inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth 24 Amendment during and after the removal of plaintiff’s ingrown toenail, causing the amputation of 25 plaintiff’s toe. (Id.) 26 In the pleading filed December 4, 2025, plaintiff states that on November 17, 2025, 27 plaintiff had a “real bad day” because plaintiff had a stroke. (ECF No. 16 at 1.) Plaintiff states 28 that plaintiff was taken to the hospital. (Id.) Plaintiff could not walk, think or see straight. (Id.) 1 | Plaintiff states, “Please help me.” (Id.) 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b)(1) states that a request for a court order must be 3 || made by motion. A motion for a court order must state with particularity the grounds for seeking 4 || the order and state the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)(B), (C). To the extent plaintiffs 5 || pleading filed December 4, 2025 seeks an order from this Court, plaintiff's pleading is defective 6 || because it is not made by motion as required by Rule 7(b)(1). In addition, plaintiff's pleading 7 || does not state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order and the specific relief sought. 8 | This Court also observes that the claims raised in plaintiff's pleading regarding plaintiffs stroke 9 || appear unrelated to the claims on which this action proceeds against defendant Rudas. This Court 10 | lacks authority to grant relief unrelated to the claims on which this action proceeds. See Pac. 11 | Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Medical Center,

(9th Cir. 2015) 12 | (‘[T]here must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and 13 || the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint.”). This Court also observes that plaintiff is 14 | currently incarcerated at the California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”). Plaintiff is informed that 15 || this Court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending 16 || before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.,

(1969). 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no further orders will issue addressing 18 | plaintiff's notice regarding health conditions filed December 4, 2025. (ECF No. 16.) 19 20 | Dated: December 11, 2025 A aA Aan Spe | CHI SOO KIM 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 Pere3172.ord/2 26 27 28