Masterson v. Killen et al
Filing
113
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS that Plaintiff's 85 MOTION for Injunctive Relief be Denied, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/19/16. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R Due Within Thirty Days. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
15
DANIEL MASTERSON,
Plaintiff,
16
17
18
19
Case No. 1:11-cv-01179-DAD-SAB-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED
v.
S. KILLEN, et al.,
(ECF NO. 85)
Defendants.
OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Plaintiff is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for
injunctive relief, filed April 11, 2016. (ECF No. 85.)
Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at Corcoran (SATF), is
proceeding in this action against Defendant correctional officials employed by CDCR at SATF
28
1
1 on his claims of retaliation and conspiracy to retaliate against Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks an order
2 from the Court directing Defendants to return certain items of Plaintiff’s legal property. Plaintiff
3 indicates that he was transferred from SATF to the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility (RJDCF),
4 and then back to SATF. Plaintiff indicates that he was informed that two large file boxes of legal
5 documents had been sent to Plaintiff at RJDCF, and have yet to be returned to him at SATF.
6 Plaintiff states that the boxes were shipped before he had the opportunity inspect the boxes.
7 Plaintiff indicates that although discovery in this matter is closed, the two boxes “may in fact
8 contain evidence that will be used to defeat any summary judgment motion filed by Defendants.”
9 (ECF No. 85, at 2:27-3:3.)
10
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court
11 must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95,
12 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State,
13 Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before
14 it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102. Thus, “[a] federal
15 court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject
16 matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not
17 before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985).
18
The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in
19 general. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 491-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United
20 States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this
21 action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at
22 491-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. Further, requests for prospective relief are further limited by
23 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court
24 find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the
25 violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation
26 of the Federal right.”
27
This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s third amended complaint filed on November 22,
28 2013 against Defendants Suzanne Killen, Velva Rowell, Brad Hall, Michael Fisher, Lieutenant
2
1 F. A. Rodriguez, Kelly Santoro, and Captain Randy Tolson for retaliation, and against
2 defendants Suzanne Killen, Velva Rowell, Brad Hall, Lieutenant F. A. Rodriguez, Kelly Santoro,
3 and Captain Randy Tolson for conspiracy to retaliate against Plaintiff. By this motion, Plaintiff
4 seeks to have the Court intervene and order CDCR to provide him with two boxes of his personal
5 and legal property. Plaintiff states that the boxes were confiscated before he had the opportunity
6 to inspect them. He contends that they might contain information relevant to this action.
The relief requested by Plaintiff is not related to the underlying claims that Defendants
7
8 retaliated against him. Since the relief sought would not remedy the violation of the Federal
9 right at issue here, the Court cannot grant the requested relief and Plaintiff’s motion for equitable
10 relief should be denied. Further, while Plaintiff seeks the documents to respond to Defendants’
11 motion for summary judgment. He has been granted several extensions of time due and has now
12 filed his opposition to the motion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive
13
14 relief be DENIED.
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
15
16 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within thirty
17 (30) days after being served with these finding and recommendations, the parties may file written
18 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and
19 Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified
20 time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.2d F.3d 834,
21 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24 Dated:
October 19, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?