George K.Colbert v. Carrasco et al

Filing 10

FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATION, Recommending That Plaintiff's Motion For Preliminary Injunctive Relief Be Denied (Doc. 9 ), Objections, If Any, Due Within Thirty Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/16/2012. F&R's referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 8/20/2012. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GEORGE K. COLBERT,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:11-cv-00010-AWI-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION,
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED
(Doc. 9.)

v.
M. CARRASCO, et al.,

15

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS

Defendants.
16
/
17
18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

George K. Colbert (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights

20

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on

21

January 4, 2011. (Doc. 1.) On December 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary

22

injunction. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff’s motion is now before the Court.

23

II.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

24

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v.

25

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff

26

seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is

27

likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips

28

in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An
1

1

injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376

2

(citation omitted) (emphasis added).

3

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary

4

injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before

5

it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660,

6

1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc.,

7

454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

violation of the Federal right.”

13

Plaintiff has requested a court order enjoining prison officials at California State Prison-

14

Sacramento (“CSPS”) from retaliating against him and taking his property. Plaintiff alleges that on

15

October 26, 2011, correctional officer Leiningler confiscated some of Plaintiff’s personal property;

16

on November 16, 2011, K. A. Daly removed paperwork from a staff complaint to prevent further

17

review; and his prison appeals have been denied. However, the order requested by Plaintiff would

18

not remedy any of the claims upon which this action proceeds. Plaintiff’s Complaint in this action

19

is based on allegations against defendants for events occurring at the California Correctional

20

Institution in 2008 when Plaintiff was incarcerated there. Plaintiff is now incarcerated at CSPS and

21

requests a court order compelling prison officials there to act or refrain from acting. Because such

22

an order would not remedy any of the claims upon which this action proceeds, the Court lacks

23

jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s motion must be denied.

24

Moreover, “[A] federal court may [only] issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction

25

over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the

26

rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719,

27

727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Because prison officials at CSPS are not defendants in

28

///
2

1

Plaintiff's lawsuit, the Court does not have jurisdiction to issue an order in this action compelling

2

them to act or refrain from acting pursuant to Plaintiff's motion.

3

III.

4
5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunctive relief, filed on December 22, 2011, be DENIED.

6

These findings and recommendation are submitted to the United States District Judge

7

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

8

after being served with these findings and recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with

9

the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and

10

Recommendation." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

11

waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:
6i0kij

July 16, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3