K'napp v. Adams et al
Filing
75
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/23/2011 recommending that 66 MOTION for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by Eric C.R. K'napp be DENIED. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 6/27/2011. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K'NAPP,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
1:06-cv-01701-LJO-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION BE DENIED
(Doc. 66.)
v.
D. G. ADAMS, et al.,
15
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS
Defendants.
16
/
17
18
I.
BACKGROUND
19
Plaintiff, Eric Charles Rodney K'napp (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and
20
in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the
21
Original Complaint commencing this action on November 22, 2006. (Doc. 1.) This action now
22
proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on November 13, 2008, against
23
defendants Warden Derral G. Adams, Sergeant (“Sgt.”) C. Pugliese, Lieutenant (“Lt.”) E. Smith, K.
24
Motty, R. Guerrero, E. Meaders, Sgt. B. Johnson, Captain D. Cuevas, Lt. J. T. Tucker, Associate
25
Warden S. Sherman, D. Selvy (Classification Services Representative), and Does 1-5 (Mailroom
26
Workers) for retaliating against Plaintiff, and against defendants K. Motty, Sgt. C. Pugliese, Lt.
27
Smith, R. Guerrero, Appeals Coordinator Cooper, Appeals Coordinator V. R. Garcia, Appeals
28
Coordinator R. Hall, and Does 1-5 (Mailroom Workers) for interfering with his right to send mail
1
1
in violation of the First Amendment.1 (Doc. 16.) Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the California
2
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison ("SATF") in Corcoran, California.
3
On February 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief via a court
4
order directing prison officials at SATF to accommodate his medically verified physical and mental
5
disabilities, to allow him access to the courts, and to cease ongoing violations of the constitution and
6
federal and state laws. (Doc. 66.) Specifically, Plaintiff requests to remain single-celled because
7
of a mental condition; to be allowed access to a word-processing typewriter because of a physical
8
impairment making it difficult for him to write documents by hand; to return his legal materials and
9
allow him to keep them in his cell; to allow him access to his entire Health Record and Central File;
10
to consider allowing new inmates at least four hours per week at the law library; to provide him with
11
copies of documents exceeding fifty pages; to allow him unlimited telephone privileges; to allow
12
him to receive Priority First Class mail; to repair or replace lamps which make loud noises; and to
13
provide him with a clean pillow and two laundry bags. Id. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
14
injunction is now before the Court.
15
II.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v.
17
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff
18
seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is
19
likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips
20
in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An
21
injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376
22
(citation omitted) (emphasis added).
23
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary
24
injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before
25
it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660,
26
1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc.,
27
1
28
All other claims and defendants were dismissed from this action by the Court on August 17, 2009, based on
Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 29.)
2
1
454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or
2
controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective
3
relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which
4
requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary
5
to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the
6
violation of the Federal right.”
7
Plaintiff has requested a court order directing prison officials at SATF to act. However, the
8
order requested by Plaintiff would not remedy any of the claims upon which this action proceeds.
9
This action is proceeding against defendants for retaliation and for interfering with Plaintiff's
10
outgoing mail, based on events occurring before he filed this action in November 2006. Plaintiff
11
now requests a court order protecting him from present and future actions. Because such an order
12
would not remedy any of the claims upon which this action proceeds, the Court lacks jurisdiction
13
to issue the order sought by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s motion must be denied.
14
III.
15
16
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for
preliminary injunction, filed February 25, 2011, be DENIED.
17
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
18
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days
19
after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections
20
with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings
21
and Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified
22
time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th
23
Cir. 1991).
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
Dated:
6i0kij
May 23, 2011
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?