Porter v. Jennings et al
Filing
151
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunction (Docs. 146 , 148 ) be DENIED re 12 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 11/21/2013. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
SAMUEL KENNETH PORTER,
10
Plaintiff,
11
12
v.
Defendants.
14
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(ECF Nos. 146, 148)
FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD
I.
16
17
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION BE DENIED
CAPTAIN JENNINGS, et al.,
13
15
Case No. 1:10-cv-01811-AWI-DLB PC
Background
Plaintiff Samuel Kenneth Porter (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint against Defendants Jennings and Lowe for failure to protect in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before the Court are: 1) Plaintiff’s motion regarding
retaliation by library staff and correctional officers, filed November 14, 2013; and 2) Plaintiff’s
motion for a court order, filed October 21, 2013. (ECF Nos. 146 & 148.) The Court treats these
motions as motions for preliminary injunction. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule
230(l).
II.
Motion Regarding Retaliation by Library Staff and Officers
Plaintiff contends that he is being impeded from going to the law library by correctional
officers at Calipatria State Prison, and requests a court order that he be allowed access. “A plaintiff
seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is
1
1
likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips
2
in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council,
3
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted). The purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to
4
preserve the status quo or to prevent irreparable injury pending the resolution of the underlying
5
claim. Sierra On-line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). “A
6
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter, 555 U.S. at
7
24. An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the movant is entitled to relief. Id.
8
at 22.
9
Plaintiff is now incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison. The events at issue in this action
10
occurred at Corcoran State Prison. Calipatria prison officials are not parties to this action. “A federal
11
court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter
12
jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the
13
court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir.
14
1983). The Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the rights of parties not before it. Accordingly,
15
Plaintiff’s motion, filed November 14, 2013 and construed as a preliminary injunction, should be
16
denied.
17
III.
Motion for Court Order
18
Plaintiff complains that he is not receiving access to the law library, and that he is unable to
19
copy his exhibits. Plaintiff requests a court order to Calipatria State Prison to receive Preferred Legal
20
User status. Again, as discussed in detail above, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Calipatria prison
21
officials. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion, filed October 21, 2013 and construed as a preliminary
22
injunction, should be denied.
23
IV.
24
25
Conclusion and Recommendation
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions, filed
October 21, 2013 and November 14, 2013, be DENIED for lack of jurisdiction.
26
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
27
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days
28
after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections
2
1
with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
2
Recommendations.” A party may respond to another party’s objections by filing a response within
3
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of that party’s objections. The parties are advised
4
that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District
5
Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
10
Dated:
/s/ Dennis
November 21, 2013
L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
3b142a
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?