Fraher v. Heyne et al

Filing 24

ORDER Denying 22 Plaintiff's Motion Regarding Mail Interference, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/14/12. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 CECILIA FRAHER, CASE NO. 1:10-cv-0951-MJS (PC) 9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION REGARDING MAIL INTERFERENCE 10 v. 11 (ECF No. 22) DR. S. HEYNE, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 / 14 15 Plaintiff Cecilia Fraher (“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. Plaintiff has consented to 17 the Magistrate Judge handling all matters in this action. (ECF No. 6.) 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “motion to submit evidence of institutional interference 19 in Plaintiff’s access to the court.” (Mot., ECF No. 22.) It is unclear if Plaintiff is asking 20 simply to submit evidence to the Court or if she also wishes to move for injunctive relief. 21 The Court will apply the standards for both to Plaintiff’s motion. 22 I. MOTION TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE 23 The Court has not yet authorized Plaintiff’s Complaint to be served. No opposing 24 parties have appeared in the action. There is nothing pending in this matter that would call 25 for evidence to be filed with the Court. 26 The Court cannot serve as a repository for the parties' evidence (i.e., medical 27 records, declarations, etc.). Plaintiff, and any other parties who may appear in this action, 28 may not file evidence with the Court until the course of litigation brings the evidence into 1 question (for example, on a motion for summary judgment, at trial, or when requested by 2 the Court). 3 Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to submit evidence via her motion, the 4 motion is DENIED. 5 II. 6 7 MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF It may be that Plaintiff is asking the Court to grant her injunctive relief in connection with alleged mail interference at Central California Women’s Facility. 8 The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance 9 of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to 10 secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of 11 Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a 12 plaintiff who “demonstrates either (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility 13 of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardship 14 tips in its favor.” Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F.2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). 15 Under either approach the plaintiff ‘must demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable 16 injury.” Id. Also, an injunction should not issue if the plaintiff “shows no chance of success 17 on the merits.” Id. At a bare minimum, the plaintiff “must demonstrate a fair chance of 18 success on the merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.” Id. 19 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the 20 Court must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 21 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). 22 If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear 23 the matter in question. Id. 24 Plaintiff’s is proceeding on an Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care claim; 25 that claim is the one which presents the controversy pending before the Court. (ECF No. 26 14.) No order relating to mail interference at Plaintiff’s institution would remedy the wrong 27 for which Plaintiff seeks relief in this action . The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to issue 28 the order sought by Plaintiff. -2- 1 2 Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff is requesting injunctive relief, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: ci4d6 June 14, 2012 Michael J. Seng /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

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?