Porter v. Jennings et al
Filing
34
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 18 , 28 , 29 Plaintiff's Motions, Construed As Motions for Preliminary Injunction, Should Be DENIED re 12 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 12/20/2011. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within twenty-one (21) days. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
SAMUEL KENNETH PORTER,
9
Plaintiff,
10
11
CASE NO. 1:10-CV-01811-AWI-DLB PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
BE DENIED
v.
JENNINGS, et al.,
12
(DOCS. 18, 28, 29)
Defendants.
/
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE
DAYS
13
14
I.
15
Background
Plaintiff Samuel Kenneth Porter (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California
16
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in
17
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding
18
on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint against Defendants Jennings, Lowe, and Darling for
19
failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before the Court are: 1)
20
Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, filed June 21, 2011; 2) Plaintiff’s motion for
21
Defendants to admit polygraph results, filed October 7, 2011; and 3) Plaintiff’s motion for an
22
order of examination, filed November 4, 2011. Docs. 18, 27, 28. The Court treats all motions as
23
motions for preliminary injunction.
24
I.
25
Motion For Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiff moves for the Court to order a polygraph examination to occur. Plaintiff also
26
requests single cell status. “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is
27
likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
28
preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the
1
1
public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations
2
omitted). The purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo or to prevent
3
irreparable injury pending the resolution of the underlying claim. Sierra On-line, Inc. v. Phoenix
4
Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). “A preliminary injunction is an
5
extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 24. An injunction may
6
only be awarded upon a clear showing that the movant is entitled to relief. Id. at 22. Here,
7
Plaintiff fails to demonstrate any irreparable harm regarding a polygraph examination for
8
Defendants or Plaintiff. Additionally, Plaintiff is now incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison.
9
The events at issue in this action occurred at Corcoran State Prison. Calipatria prison officials
10
are not parties to this action. “A federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal
11
jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to
12
determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration &
13
Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). The Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce
14
the rights of parties not before it. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction,
15
filed June 21, 2011, should be denied.
16
II.
17
Motion For Defendants To Admit To Polygraph Results
Plaintiff moves for the Defendants to stipulate to the admission of Plaintiff’s polygraph
18
results, and to order a polygraph to be conducted. First, there are no polygraph results. The
19
Court will not order that any polygraph tests be conducted. Even if Plaintiff is proceeding in
20
forma pauperis, the Court will not expend public funds without authorization by Congress.
21
Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (citing United States v.
22
MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976)). There is no authorization for the Court here.
23
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion, filed October 7, 2011, should be denied.
24
III.
25
Motion For Order For Examination
Plaintiff moves for the Court to order the CDCR to permit a state certified polygraph
26
examiner to examine Plaintiff. As state previously, the Court may not attempt to determine the
27
rights of parties not before it. Here, the CDCR is not a party to this action. The Court lacks
28
jurisdiction to require CDCR to act here. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion, filed November 4,
2
1
2011, should be denied.
2
IV.
3
Conclusion And Recommendation
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions, filed
4
June 21, 2011, October 7, 2011, and November 4, 2011, construed as motions for preliminary
5
injunction, should be denied.
6
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
7
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-
8
one (21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file
9
written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
10
Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections
11
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.
12
Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
3b142a
December 20, 2011
/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?