Giraldes v. Hicimbothom et al

Filing 26

ORDER Denying Motion For Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 19 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 4/8/2010. (Scrivner, E)

1 2 3 4 5 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 LARRY GIRALDES, JR., 9 10 v. (Doc. 19) 11 HICIMBOTHOM, et al., 12 13 14 15 16 Order Plaintiff Larry Giraldes, Jr. ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Defendants. / Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00154-DLB PC ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding 19 on Plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed September 8, 2009, against Defendants Cano, Jones, 20 Hicimbothom, Chavez, Ortiz, Nelson, Trimble, and Robicheaux for actions taken at Corcoran 21 State Prison. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, filed 22 January 25, 2010. (Doc. 19.) 23 "A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on

24 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 25 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Winter v. 26 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (citations omitted). The 27 purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo or to prevent irreparable 28 injury pending the resolution of the underlying claim. Sierra On-line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, 1

1 Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). 2 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court

3 must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 4 102, 103 S. Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of 5 Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S. Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the court does not 6 have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. 7 Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102. Thus, "[a] federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal 8 jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to 9 determine the rights of persons not before the court." Zepeda v. United States Immigration 10 Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). 11 As of November 24, 2009, Plaintiff is incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison

12 ("SVSP"), in Soledad, California. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff requests that the Court order the CDCR to 13 provide ordered treatments by specialists, and to order Dr. Tuvera at SVSP to accommodate 14 Plaintiff's medical needs. (Mot. Prelim. Inj. 6-7.) If Plaintiff is not granted these requests, 15 Plaintiff requests that SVSP medical officer Sepulveda explain why he substituted his own 16 treatment plan. (Id.) 17 The CDCR and the doctors at SVSP are not defendants in this action, and thus the Court

18 lacks jurisdiction to determine their rights. See Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727. Accordingly, it is 19 HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, filed January 25, 2010, 20 is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. 21 22 23 3b142a 24 25 26 27 28 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:

April 8, 2010

/s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE