Glass v. Woodford et al

Filing 82

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that Plaintiff's 65 Motion for Injunctive Relief be Denied signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/1/2012. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 1/26/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

DONALD GLASS,

10

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00098-AWI-BAM PC
Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

R. FIELDS, et al.,

13

(ECF No. 65)
Defendants.

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS
/

14
15

Plaintiff Donald Glass (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

16

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the

17

complaint, filed January 5, 2009, against Defendants Hamilton, Robles, Logue, and Bautista for

18

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; Defendants Grandy, Riddle, and McDaniel

19

for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and Defendants Hamilton,

20

Bautista, Logue, Robles, Riddle, Cedillos, Grandy, and McDaniel for retaliation in violation of the

21

First Amendment.1 On October 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF

22

No. 65.) Defendants filed an opposition on October 20, 2011, requesting the motion be denied

23

because Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief from persons who are not parties to this action. (ECF

24

No. 68.)

25

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

26
27
28

1
On August 31, 2011, an order issued dismissing Doe Defendants from this action due to Plaintiff’s failure
to effect service of process. (ECF No. 58.) On October 25, 2011, an order issued to show cause why Defendant
Grandy should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to effect service of process. (ECF No. 69.) Plaintiff was
granted a thirty day extension of time to file a response on December 1, 2011. (ECF No. 78.)

1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

decision will prevent or redress the injury.” Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 129 S. Ct. 1142, 1149

6

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

7

Plaintiff seeks a court order directing officials at Kern Valley State Prison to give him access

8

to his legal materials. The case or controversy requirement cannot be met in light of the fact that the

9

issue Plaintiff seeks to remedy in his motion, access to his legal materials, bears no relation to the

10

claim that Defendants used excessive force, were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, or

11

retaliated against him while he was confined at California State Prison, Corcoran. Lyons, 461 U.S.

12

at 102; 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); also Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 129 S. Ct. 1142, 1148-49

13

(2009); Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 102-04, 107 (1998). Because the case-

14

or-controversy requirement cannot be met, the pendency of this action provides no basis upon which

15

to award Plaintiff the injunctive relief requested. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 102-103.

16

Plaintiff claims that pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), the court does not

17

need to have jurisdiction over the parties to the injunction to issue the requested relief. However,

18

any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which provides in

19

relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no

20

further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs.

21

The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is

22

narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and

23

is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. §

24

3626(a)(1)(A). The relief requested by Plaintiff is not related to the underlying claims that

25

Defendants used excessive force, denied him medical treatment, and retaliated against him. Since

26

the relief sought would not remedy the violation of the Federal right at issue here, the Court cannot

27

grant the requested relief and Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied.

28

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for
2

1

injunctive relief, filed October 11, 2011, be DENIED.

2

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

3

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty (20)

4

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written

5

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

6

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

7

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

8

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k

January 1, 2012

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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