Benyamini v. Manjuano et al

Filing 100

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction be Denied signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 06/14/2011. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 7/18/2011. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ROBERT BENYAMINI,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

1:06-cv-01096-AWI-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION,
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION BE DENIED
(Doc. 98.)

v.
MANJUANO, et al.,

14

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS

Defendants.
15
/
16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Plaintiff, Robert Benyamini (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the original

20

complaint on August 21, 2006. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds with the Third Amended

21

Complaint, filed on May 23, 2008, on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims for adverse conditions

22

of confinement, against defendants Debbie Mandujano,1 Deputy Wilcox, Deputy Wilkerson, and

23

Deputy O’Grady.2 (Doc. 35.) Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the California State Prison-

24

Sacramento ("CSP-SAC").

25
1

26
27

Plaintiff identified this defendant in the Third Amended Complaint as Debbie Manjuano. (Doc. 35.)
However, in the Answer to the complaint, Defendant spelled her name Debbie Mandujano. (Doc. 79.) The Court
uses Defendant’s spelling herein.
2

28

On May 26, 2009, the Court dismissed all other claims and defendants from this action based on Plaintiff’s
failure to state a claim. (Doc. 52.)

1

1

On June 10, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction via a court order

2

directing prison officials at CSP-SAC to accommodate his disabilities, to allow him to use a research

3

computer, to provide pre-stamped envelopes to inmates housed in administrative segregation ("Ad-

4

Seg"), to allow inmates in Ad-Seg one phone call to family members, and to compel the California

5

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide him with free copies from his C-file. (Doc.

6

98.) Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is now before the Court.

7

II.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

8

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v.

9

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff

10

seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is

11

likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips

12

in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An

13

injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376

14

(citation omitted) (emphasis added).

15

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary

16

injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before

17

it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660,

18

1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc.,

19

454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or

20

controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective

21

relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which

22

requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary

23

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

24

violation of the Federal right.”

25

Plaintiff has requested a court order directing prison officials at CSP-SAC to act. However,

26

the order requested by Plaintiff would not remedy any of the claims upon which this action proceeds.

27

This action is proceeding against defendants for subjecting Plaintiff to adverse conditions of

28

confinement at the Modesto County Jail in 2003. Plaintiff now requests a court order directing
2

1

prison officials at CSP-SAC to modify Plaintiff's present conditions of confinement. Because such

2

an order would not remedy any of the claims upon which this action proceeds, the Court lacks

3

jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s motion must be denied.

4

III.

5
6

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunction, filed June 10, 2011, be DENIED.

7

These findings and recommendation are submitted to the United States District Judge

8

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days

9

after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections

10

with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings

11

and Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified

12

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

13

Cir. 1991).

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated:
6i0kij

June 14, 2011

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3