Hughes v. Bruner

Filing 27

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Denying Plaintiff's 22 MOTION for a Court Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A Boone on 2/22/13. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections Due Within Fourteen Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BERNARD C. HUGHES,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT BRUNER,
Defendant.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00110-AWI-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMENDING DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR A COURT ORDER
(ECF No. 22)
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS

16
17

Plaintiff Bernard Hughes is a state inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

18

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on January 21, 2011,

19

and the second amended complaint, filed December 26, 2012, is currently pending screening. At

20

the time that Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint, he filed a motion for a court order

21

directing prison officials to return his legal documents. In essence, Plaintiff seeks equitable relief.

22

For each form of relief sought in federal court, Plaintiff must establish standing. Mayfield

23

v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.denied, 131 S. Ct. 503 (2010). This

24

requires Plaintiff to “show that he is under threat of suffering ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and

25

particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be

26

fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable

27

judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.” Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 129 S. Ct.

28

1142, 1149 (2009) (citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969 (citation omitted).
1

1

In addition, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act,

2

which provides in relevant part, “[p]rospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison

3

conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a

4

particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless

5

the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the

6

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

7

the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).

8

Plaintiff is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and

9

Rehabilitation and is incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison. Plaintiff’s claim in this action

10

arises from a past incident while he was in the custody of the Mariposa County Sheriff

11

Department in 2009. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that following a dispute at the Mariposa

12

County Jail, Defendant Bruner filed a false rules violation report causing Plaintiff to be found

13

guilty of a rules violation.

14

The pendency of this action against officials at the Mariposa County Sheriff Department

15

does not confer on the Court jurisdiction to issue an order directing that prison officials at Kern

16

Valley State Prison return his legal materials. Additionally, such an order would not remedy the

17

underlying legal claim in this action, which involves the past conduct of the Mariposa County

18

Sheriff Department. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Summers, 129 S.Ct. 1142 at 1149; Steel Co.,

19

523 U.S. at 103-04; Lyons, 461 U.S. at 101; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. Accordingly,

20

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a court order be DENIED.

21

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this

22

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen

23

(14) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these

24

findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document

25

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The

26

district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28

27

//

28

//
2

1

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified

2

time may waive the right to appeal the district judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

3

(9th Cir. 1991).

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
Dated:
9

February 22, 2013

_

DEAC_Signature-END:

10

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
i1eed4

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3