Bussiere v. Cano et al

Filing 86

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Plaintiff's 58 71 Motions for Preliminary Injunction be Denied signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 04/17/2012. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 5/7/2012. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
ARTHUR T. BUSSIERE,

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00945-AWI-GBC (PC)

9
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE
DENIED

CANO, et al.,
12

Docs. 58, 71
Defendants.

13

/ OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 15 DAYS

14
15

On May 26, 2010, Plaintiff Arthur T. Bussiere (“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 October 17,
17 2011 and January 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction against prison officials
18 at Corcoran State Prison for retaliation by prison officials who are not parties to this action. Docs.
19 58, 71.
20

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on

21 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the
22 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural
23 Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). The purpose of preliminary injunctive
24 relief is to preserve the status quo or to prevent irreparable injury pending the resolution of the
25 underlying claim. Sierra On-line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir.
26 1984).
27

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court must

28 have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, (1983); Valley
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 who are not parties to this action. 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. Plaintiff’s requests for
12 injunction deal with allegations that are not relevant to this complaint. Therefore, the Court lacks
13 jurisdiction over prison officials at Corcoran State Prison, who are not parties to this action.
14

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary

15 injunction, filed October 17, 2011 and January 26, 2012, should be DENIED.
16

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)(l). Within fifteen (15) 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.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time
21 may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57
22 (9th Cir. 1991).
23 IT IS SO ORDERED.
24

Dated:
25 7j8cce

April 17, 2012
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
Page 2 of 2