Jacobs v. Quinones et al

Filing 86

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plainitff's Motion for Injunctive Relief, filed August 11, 2014 84 , be DENIED for Lack of Jurisdiction ;re 84 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER filed by George E. Jacobs, IV. referred to Judge Ishii,signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/13/14. Objections to F&R due by 9/2/2014 (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GEORGE E. JACOBS, IV,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
A.C. QUINONES, et al.,
Defendants.

1:10-cv-02349-AWI-JLT (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DENY PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION
(Doc. 84)
15-DAY DEADLINE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. '
1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ("1st AC"). (Docs. 11,
17, 24.) Upon screening, the 1st AC was found to state cognizable claims against Defendants R.
Davis, Pruitt, A.C. Quinones, T.J. Williams, Cogdill, Scaiffe, Bardonnex, and Magana and
service upon them was ordered. (Docs. 17, 19.)
On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order or
preliminary injunction seeking an order prohibiting prison personnel "at Corcoran State Prison 4B
Yard SHU [from] tampering with Plaintiff's mail on behalf of their co-workers -- the Defendants
in this case" and exempting Plaintiff from "post security." (Doc. 84, at pp. 3, 10.)
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for
preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it
have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103
1

1

S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church

2

and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or

3

controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective

4

relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. ' 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which

5

requires that the Court find the Arelief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than

6

necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to

7

correct the violation of the Federal right.@

8

Regardless, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison

9

officials in general or over the manner in which Plaintiff's mail is handled. Summers v. Earth

10

Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th

11

Cir. 2010). The Court=s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the cognizable

12

legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 492-93; Mayfield, 599

13

F.3d at 969.

14

Plaintiff does not seek the temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction

15

against any of the Defendants in this action. AA federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it

16

has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not

17

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

18

Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Thus, Plaintiff=s

19

motion must be denied for lack of jurisdiction over the prison personnel who Plaintiff asserts are

20

tampering with his mail on behalf of their co-workers -- the Defendants in this action.

21

Plaintiff is not precluded from attempting to state cognizable claims in a new action if he

22

believes his civil rights are being violated beyond his pleadings in this action. The issue is not that

23

Plaintiff=s allegations are not serious, or that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief if sought in the

24

proper forum. The seriousness of tampering with Plaintiff=s mail cannot and do not overcome

25

what is a jurisdictional bar. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 103-04 (A[The] triad of injury in fact,

26

causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III=s case-or-controversy requirement,

27

and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence.@) This

28
2

1
2
3

action is simply not the proper vehicle for conveyance of the relief Plaintiff seeks. 1
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff=s motion for injunctive
relief, filed August 11, 2014 (Doc. 84), be denied for lack of jurisdiction.

4

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

5

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within

6

fifteen (15) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file

7

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to Magistrate

8

Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within

9

the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court=s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

10

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 13, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1

Plaintiff=s motion also fails to make the requisite showing, supported by admissible evidence, to obtain a
preliminary injunction. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20-4, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376
(2008). However, it is unnecessary to reach the merits of Plaintiff=s motions in light of the fact that the jurisdictional
issue is fatal to his requests for relief. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493, 129 S.Ct. at 1149; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

28
3