Masterson v. Killen et al

Filing 46

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 45 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, for Lack of Jurisdiction signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/25/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL MASTERSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:11-cv-01179-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF, FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
(Doc. 45.)

SUZANNE KILLEN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

Daniel Masterson (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the

21

Complaint commencing this action on July 18, 2011. (Doc. 1.) This case proceeds with

22

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint filed on November 22, 2013 against defendants Suzanne

23

Killen, Velva Rowell, Brad Hall, Michael Fisher, Lieutenant F. A. Rodriguez, Kelly Santoro,

24

and Captain Randy Tolson for retaliation, and against defendants Suzanne Killen, Velva

25

Rowell, Brad Hall, Lieutenant F. A. Rodriguez, Kelly Santoro, and Captain Randy Tolson for

26

conspiracy to retaliate against Plaintiff. (Doc. 28.)

27
28

On February 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for the court to issue an order, which the
court construes as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. (Doc. 45.)
1

1

II.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

2

AA preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.@

3

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation

4

omitted). AA plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to

5

succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary

6

relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public

7

interest.@ Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear

8

showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

9

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

10

preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary

11

matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S.

12

95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for

13

Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the

14

Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter

15

in question.

16

3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the

17

Arelief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of

18

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

19

Federal right.@

Id.

Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. '

20

Discussion

21

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (RJD)

22

in San Diego, California. Plaintiff seeks a court order requiring prison staff at RJD to stop

23

retaliating against him. However, the events at issue in Plaintiff’s complaint for this action

24

allegedly occurred the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison in

25

Corcoran, California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there.

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

727 (9th Cir. 1985). The order Plaintiff seeks would bar persons who are not defendants in this

2

action, and who are not before the court, from acting and would not remedy any of the claims

3

upon which this action proceeds. Therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order

4

sought by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff=s motion must be denied.

5

III.

CONCLUSION

6

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s

7

motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on February 25, 2015, 2013, is DENIED for lack

8

of jurisdiction.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 25, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
3