Espritt v. Saesee et al
Filing
23
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that Plaintiff's 21 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief be Denied; Objections, if any, Due in 30 Days signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/7/2013. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 4/9/2013. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BRIAN ESPRITT,
12
1:11-cv-00519-AWI-GSA-PC
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED
(Doc. 21.)
A SAESEE, et al.,
15
Defendants.
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS
/
16
17
I.
BACKGROUND
18
Brian Espritt (“Plaintiff”), a civil detainee at Atascadero State Hospital in Atascadero,
19
California, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42
20
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on March 28, 2011. (Doc. 1.)
21
On October 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 12.) On June 22, 2012,
22
the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to either file a Second Amended Complaint or notify
23
the Court of his willingness to proceed with the claims in the First Amended Complaint found
24
cognizable by the Court. (Doc. 15.) On July 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended
25
Complaint, bringing claims against correctional officers at the SATF for excessive force and
26
confiscation of personal property. (Doc. 17.)
27
28
On March 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, which is now
before the Court. (Doc. 21.)
1
1
2
3
II.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiff has requested a court order directing the Kings County Jail to forward his personal
property to him at Atascadero State Prison.
4
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v.
5
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff
6
seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is
7
likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips
8
in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An
9
injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376
10
(citation omitted) (emphasis added).
11
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary
12
injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before
13
it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660,
14
1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc.,
15
454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or
16
controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective
17
relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which
18
requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary
19
to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the
20
violation of the Federal right.”
21
Discussion
22
The order requested by Plaintiff would not remedy any of the claims upon which this action
23
proceeds. The defendants in this action are employees at SATF, and Plaintiff's allegations arose
24
from events occurring before March 28, 2011. Plaintiff now requests a court order requiring
25
employees at the Kern County Jail to return his property. Because such an order would not remedy
26
any of the claims upon which this action proceeds, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order
27
sought by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. “[A] federal court may [only] issue an
28
injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the
2
1
claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United
2
States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added).
3
IV.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
4
5
Based on the foregoing, THE COURT HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion
for preliminary injunctive relief, filed July 2, 2010, is DENIED.
6
These findings and recommendations 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 recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections
9
with the Court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings
10
and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time
11
may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.
12
1991).
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
Dated:
6i0kij
March 7, 2013
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?