Hawthorne v. Mendoza-Power et al
Filing
124
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's 114 Motion for Court Order be Denied signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 10/09/2012. Referred to Judge O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 10/29/2012. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
RALPH KELLY HAWTHORNE, JR.,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
Case No. 1:07-cv-01101-LJO-DLB PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR COURT ORDER BE
DENIED
KATHY MENDOZA-POWER, et al.,
ECF No. 114
14
Defendants.
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN
DAYS
15
16
17
Plaintiff Ralph Kelly Hawthorne, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California
18
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil action
19
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Kathy Mendoza-Power and K. Henry have appeared in
20
this action. On August 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order. ECF No. 114. The
21
Court construes the motion as one for preliminary injunction.
22
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the
23
merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the
24
balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v.
25
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted). The purpose of
26
preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo or to prevent irreparable injury pending the
27
resolution of the underlying claim. Sierra On-line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415,
28
1422 (9th Cir. 1984).
1
1
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court must
2
have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983);
3
Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464,
4
471(1982). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear
5
the matter in question. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102. Thus, “[a] federal court may issue an injunction
6
[only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it
7
may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States
8
Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) (listing persons
9
bound by injunction).
10
Plaintiff seeks a court order against warden James Hartley, lieutenant Snyder, J. A. Hill and
11
E. P. Richards, compelling them to mail out Plaintiff’s mail in a timely manner. None of these
12
individuals are Defendants in this action. The Court lacks jurisdiction over parties not before it.
13
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion should be denied.
14
15
16
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion, filed
August 5, 2012, construed as a motion for preliminary injunction, be denied.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
17
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days
18
after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections
19
with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
20
Recommendations.” A party may respond to another party’s objections by filing a response within
21
fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a party’s objections. The parties are advised that
22
failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s
23
order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).
24
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Dennis
October 9, 2012
L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
DEAC_Signature-END:
28
3b142a
2
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?