Jackson v. Palombo et al

Filing 79

ORDER DENYING 71 Motion for Reconsideration, with Prejudice signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/21/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

RICHARD JACKSON,

10
11

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01129-SKO PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION, WITH PREJUDICE

v.
(Doc. 71)

12
13

MIKE PALOMBO, et al.,
Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Richard Jackson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

16

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 23, 2010. On June 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed

17

a motion seeking a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff did not request any specific relief but he set

18

forth assertions regarding his current conditions of confinement at Kern Valley State Prison. The

19

Court denied the motion on October 11, 2012, stating

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff previously brought similar issues before the Court, and he was informed that
the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties before it in this action and to
Plaintiff’s claim for damages arising from an incident of alleged excessive force on
July 9, 2009. See e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04,
118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998) (“[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability
constitutes the core of Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, and the party
invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence.”) (citation
omitted); American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Masto, 670 F.3d 1046, 106162 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[F]ederal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or
controversies.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Once again,
Plaintiff’s filing is essentially an informational notice of events or incidences and it
does not request any specific relief to which Plaintiff might arguably be entitled to
in this action.
The Court recognizes that Plaintiff is, very generally, asserting he has some safety
concerns, but the pendency of this action provides no basis upon which the Court
may issue any orders directed at remedying Plaintiff’s current conditions of
1

1

confinement. To the extent that Plaintiff is concerned about actions by correctional
officers at Kern Valley State Prison, he should raise those concerns with the
appropriate staff members at the prison, which might include his correctional
counselor or an appeals coordinator. Plaintiff is also not precluded from taking legal
action, but whatever action might be appropriate, it cannot be sought in this action.

2
3
4

(Doc. 64, 1:21-2:12.)

5

On November 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that his

6

mail is being tampered with and when he brought it to the attention of his counselor, he was met with

7

“a mean attitude.” (Doc. 71, p.1.) In addition, Plaintiff’s inmate appeal was screened out.

8

Plaintiff is no longer housed at Kern Valley State Prison, but regardless, the Court does now

9

nor did it then have the jurisdiction to issue any orders to prison officials at Kern Valley State Prison

10

regarding mail tampering or any other condition of confinement. Steel Co., 523 U.S. 83 at 103-04.

11

This action is limited to damages arising out of the past conduct of Defendants. Issues relating to

12

the inmate appeal process, mail tampering, or any other current condition of confinement do not

13

provide any basis for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. That jurisdictional deficiency was

14

fatal to Plaintiff’s motion, and there are no grounds present which entitle Plaintiff to reconsideration.

15

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6); Local Rule 230(j).

16
17

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on November 14, 2012,
is HEREBY DENIED, with prejudice.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated:
ie14hj

December 21, 2012

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2