Singleton, Sr. v. Biter, et al.

Filing 53

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief 49 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 2/14/14, referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAMAR SINGLETON, SR.,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
M. D. BITER, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12cv00043 AWI DLB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Document 49)

Plaintiff Lamar Singleton (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis, filed this civil rights action on January 9, 2012. This action is proceeding against

19

Defendants Biter and Lopez for violation of the Eighth Amendment.

20

On February 4, 2014, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations that Defendants’

21

Motion to Dismiss be granted and that the action be dismissed, without prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure

22

to exhaust administrative remedies. The objection period has not yet run and the Findings and

23

Recommendations are pending.

24

On February 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document in which he requests various forms of relief.

25

Although Plaintiff did not include a title in the caption of the document, the Court construes the

26

motion as a request for injunctive relief.

27
28
1

1

A.

LEGAL STANDARD

2

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

3

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation and

4

quotation marks omitted). For each form of relief sought in federal court, Plaintiff must establish

5

standing. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009) (citation

6

omitted); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

7

This requires Plaintiff to show that he is under threat of suffering an injury in fact that is concrete and

8

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

9

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

10

decision will prevent or redress the injury. Summers, 129 S.Ct. at 1149 (quotation marks and citation

11

omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary

12
13

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

14

an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge

15

Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If

16

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

17

question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the

18

Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly

19

drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least

20

intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.”

21

B.

22

ANALYSIS
In his motion, Plaintiff explains that he was recently diagnosed with kidney cancer. While he

23

feels he is being treated fairly by his physician, he contends that he has been unable to access his

24

medical records. Plaintiff feels that this is being done to protect the interests of CDCR. He further

25

complains of acts of harassment by a confidential informant.

26
27

Plaintiff requests (1) assistance in reviewing and copying his unedited medical and mental
health records; (2) that the Court notify Mule Creek State Prison administration of the allegations in

28
2

1

his motion; and (3) that the Court order Mule Creek State Prison to stop the harassment by the

2

confidential informant.

3

The Court does not, however, have jurisdiction to provide the relief he requests. This action,

4

which forms the basis of the requirements for injunctive relief, concerns allegations of high levels of

5

arsenic in the water at Kern Valley State Prison and Plaintiff’s allegedly related health issues.

6

Defendants Biter and Lopez are named based on their involvement in the events at Kern Valley State

7

Prison.

8

Plaintiff requests relief, however, unrelated to the issues and parties in this action. The Court

9

lacks personal jurisdiction over individuals who are not parties to this action and it is unable to order

10

anyone at Mule Creek State Prison to take any action. Similarly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to

11

remedy issues at Mule Creek State Prison that are unrelated to those in this action.
Because the issues Plaintiff seeks to remedy bear no relation, jurisdictionally, to the past events

12
13

at Kern Valley State Prison that give rise to this action, the case or controversy requirement cannot be

14

met and injunctive relief must be denied.

15

B.

RECOMMENDATION
For these reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief be

16
17

DENIED.

18

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

19

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after

20

being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the

21

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

22

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

23

waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir.

24

1991).

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

February 14, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3