Palmer v. Woodford et al

Filing 95

ORDER signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 02/28/2012 adopting 83 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; denying 82 Motion for court order; denying 93 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and referring case back to Magistrate Judge. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

WILL MOSES PALMER, III,

10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.
JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,
Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00512-LJO-BAM PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A COURT ORDER
(ECF Nos. 82, 83)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

14
/ (ECF No. 93)
15
16

Plaintiff Will Moses, Palmer, III (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

17

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the first amended

18

complaint, filed August 29, 2007, against Defendants Jordnt and Bardonnex for retaliation and

19

denial of access to the court in violation of the First Amendment. The matter was referred to a

20

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

On January 9, 2012, findings and recommendations issued recommending denying Plaintiff’s

22

motion for a court order to direct the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to

23

provide Plaintiff with his legal documents and typewriter. Objections were to be filed within thirty

24

days. Rather than filing an objection, Plaintiff filed another motion for a preliminary injunction

25

directing correctional officials to provide him with his legal property (including his law books and

26

typewriter), adequate access to the law library, and single cell status.

27

For each form of relief sought in federal court, Plaintiff must establish standing. Mayfield

28

v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.denied, 131 S. Ct. 503 (2010). This
1

1

requires Plaintiff to “show that he is under threat of suffering ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and

2

particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be

3

fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial

4

decision will prevent or redress the injury.” Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 129 S. Ct. 1142,

5

1149 (2009) (citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969 (citation omitted).

6

In addition, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act,

7

which provides in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison

8

conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a

9

particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless

10

the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the

11

violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of

12

the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).

13

According to the heading on the motion, Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at California State

14

Prison, Lancaster, and claims that he is being denied access to his legal materials and typewriter.

15

In this instance the case or controversy requirement cannot be met in light of the fact that the issue

16

Plaintiff seeks to remedy in his motion bears no relation to his claims against Defendants Jordnt and

17

Bardonnex for incidents that occurred at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility,

18

Corcoran. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); also

19

Summers, 129 S. Ct. at 1148-49; Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 102-04, 107

20

(1998). The relief requested by Plaintiff is not related to the underlying claims against Defendants

21

Jordnt and Bardonnex. Since the relief sought would not remedy the violation of the Federal right

22

at issue here, the Court cannot grant the requested relief and Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary

23

injunction is denied. Plaintiff is advised that the Court cannot grant the relief he is requesting and

24

any further similar motions will be stricken from the record.

25

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

26

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings

27

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

28

///
2

1

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

The findings and recommendations, filed January 9, 2012, is adopted in full;

3

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for a court order, filed December 30, 2011, is DENIED;

4

3.

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed February 9, 2012, is DENIED;

5

and

6

4.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated:
b9ed48

This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge.

February 28, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3