Green v. David et al
Filing
49
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending 47 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction be Denied, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 4/17/12. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections due within fifteen days. (Verduzco, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9 VENCIL C. GREEN,
10
CASE NO. 1:09-cv–01747-AWI-GBC (PC)
Plaintiff,
11
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE
DENIED
12 B. S. DAVID, et al.,
Doc. 47
13
Defendants.
/ OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 15 DAYS
14
15
On October 5, 2009, Plaintiff Vencil C. Green (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro
16
se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 27,
17
2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction against prison officials at Corcoran State
18
Prison regarding the law library.
19
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on
20
the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the
21
balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural
22
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). The purpose of preliminary injunctive
23
relief is to preserve the status quo or to prevent irreparable injury pending the resolution of the
24
underlying claim. Sierra On-line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir.
25
1984).
26
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court must
27
have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, (1983); Valley
28
Page 1 of 2
1 Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 47
2 (1982). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the
3 matter in question. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102. Thus, “[a] federal court may issue an injunction [only]
4 if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may
5 not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States
6 Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985).
7
The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in
8 general or the law library at Corcoran. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 491-93
9 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is
10 limited to the parties in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is
11 proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. Therefore, the Court lacks
12 jurisdiction over prison officials at Corcoran State Prison regarding the law library.
13
Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary
14 injunction, filed February 27, 2012, should be DENIED.
15
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
16 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen (15) 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 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57
21 (9th Cir. 1991).
22 IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
Dated:
24 7j8cce
April 17, 2012
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 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?