Tafilele v. Harrington et al

Filing 40

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending to Deny Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 34 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 5/18/12: Matter referred to Judge O'Neill. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
ASOFA V. TAFILELE,

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01493-LJO-GBC (PC)

8
Plaintiff,
9
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

10
KELLY HARRINGTON, et al.,
11

Doc. 34
Defendants.

12

/ OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

13
14

On August 18, 2010, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

15

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. Defendants were employed at Kern

16

Valley State Prison. See id. On November 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to transfer Plaintiff to a

17

facility with an adequate law library against prison officials at Corcoran State Prison. The Court

18

construes this as a motion for a preliminary injunction.

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

Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 47
Page 1 of 2

1

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

2

matter in question. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102. Thus, “[a] federal court may issue an injunction [only]

3

if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may

4

not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States

5

Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985).

6

The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in

7

general or the law library at Corcoran. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 491-93

8

(2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is

9

limited to the parties in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is

10

proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. Plaintiff’s claims in this case

11

concerned actions at Kern Valley State Prison. Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction over prison

12

officials at Corcoran State Prison.

13
14

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary
injunction, filed November 8, 2011, 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 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 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
24

Dated:
7j8cce

May 18, 2012
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2