Lamon v. Adams et al

Filing 317

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Deny Plaintiff's 307 Motion Requesting Access to Case Files and Legal Materials for Lack of Jurisdiction signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 02/03/2015. Referred to Judge O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 3/7/2016.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BARRY LOUIS LAMON,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ADAMS, et al.,

15
16

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00205-LJO-JLT (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DENY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION REQUESTING
ACCESS TO CASE FILES AND LEGAL
MATERIALS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
(Doc. 307, 315)
30-DAY DEADLINE

17
18
19
20

In this action, Plaintiff claims he suffered excessive force inflicted by Defendants Baer,
Valdez, Buenos, Lee, Ponce, and Purvis while he was housed at California State Prison-Corcoran.
On January 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a temporary restraining order or

21

preliminary injunction asserting that prison personnel at California Correctional Institution in

22

Tehachapi, California were tainting his food and coercing other inmates to threated death or grievous

23

bodily harm against Plaintiff and that personnel at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California are

24

likewise tainting his food and “staging” him on yards with prison gang members in an effort to do him

25

great bodily harm. (See Docs. 307, 315.) Plaintiff generally asserts that prison staff at all of the

26

facilities he is transferred to are aware of his litigious activities and, as a result, want to do him harm.

27

(Id.) Plaintiff also grieves that, when he was transferred from CCI to KVSP, he was not allowed to

28
1

1

take his case files and asserts that this has rendered him unable to respond to any orders from this

2

court. (Id.)

3

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

4

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

5

an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665

6

(1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S.

7

464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to

8

hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. '

9

3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the Arelief

10

[sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal

11

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

12

Regardless, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison

13

officials in general or over every prison facility in the state of California. Summers v. Earth Island

14

Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010).

15

The Court=s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the cognizable legal claims in this

16

action. Summers, 129 S.Ct. at 1148-49; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

17

Plaintiff does not seek the temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction against

18

any of the Defendants who remain in this action. AA federal court may issue an injunction if it has

19

personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt

20

to determine the rights of persons not before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service,

21

753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Thus, Plaintiff=s motion must be denied for lack

22

of jurisdiction over prison personnel at CCI and KVSP. (See Doc. 287.)

23

This action cannot provide redress for the fears Plaintiff has regarding his safety at various

24

prison facilities. The issue is not that Plaintiff=s allegations are not serious, or that Plaintiff is not

25

entitled to relief if sought in the proper forum. The seriousness of Plaintiff=s accusations concerning

26

his safety cannot, and do not, overcome what is a jurisdictional bar. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 103-04

27

(A[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III=s case-or-

28

controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing
2

1
2

its existence.@) This action is simply not the proper vehicle for conveyance of the relief Plaintiff seeks.
Further, while this Court also lacks jurisdiction over officials at the various prison facilities

3

that Plaintiff has been transferred in and out of, the last order issued addressing Plaintiff’s difficulty in

4

accessing his legal property was forwarded to the Wardens and Litigation Coordinators at CSP-

5

Corcoran, CSP-Sacramento, and CCI and their assistance was requested in locating Plaintiff’s legal

6

property. (Doc. 309). The Court has received responses within the last two weeks, indicating that

7

approximately nine boxes of Plaintiff’s legal property have been located and forwarded to KVSP

8

(where Plaintiff is currently housed). (See Docs. 312, 313, 316) Thus, the issue of Plaintiff’s access

9

to his legal property is moot. Further, Plaintiff is advised that there are no current deadlines in this

10

action that require him to act. The trial of this matter has been vacated and a telephonic trial

11

confirmation hearing has been set for February 29, 2016. (See Docs. 308, 311.) Plaintiff need not file

12

anything in this action prior to the trial confirmation hearing.

13
14
15

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff=s motion for temporary
restraining order or preliminary injunction, filed January 5, 2016 (Doc. 307), be DENIED.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

16

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days

17

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections

18

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

19

Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

20

may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)

21

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 3, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
3