Felton v. Lopez, et al.

Filing 13

FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending That Plaintiff's Motion For Preliminary Injunction Be DENIED (Doc. 3 ), Objections, If Any, Due Within Thirty Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/12/2013. F&R's referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 3/18/2013. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

KELVIN FELTON,

11

1:12-cv-01066-AWI-GSA-PC
Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION BE DENIED
(Doc. 3.)

J. LOPEZ, et al.,

14

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS

Defendants.
15
/
16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Kelvin Felton (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with

19

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this

20

action on June 29, 2012. (Doc. 1.) In a separate order, the Court screened the Complaint pursuant

21

to 28 U.S.C. 1915A and found that Plaintiff stated cognizable claims against defendants Lopez and

22

Harrison for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff has been granted thirty

23

days to complete and return service documents to the Court.

24
25

On June 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. 3.)
II.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

26

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

27

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff

28

seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is
1

1

likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips

2

in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An

3

injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376

4

(citation omitted) (emphasis added).

5

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

6

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

7

it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660,

8

1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc.,

9

454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or

10

controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective

11

relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which

12

requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary

13

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

14

violation of the Federal right.”

15

Plaintiff seeks a court order prohibiting defendants and other prison officials from harassing

16

and threatening him, and requiring prison officials to transfer him to another correctional facility.

17

The order requested by Plaintiff would not remedy any of the claims upon which this action

18

proceeds. This action is proceeding against defendants for excessive force based on an incident

19

which occurred before June 29, 2012. Plaintiff now requests a court order protecting him from

20

present and future actions. Because such an order would not remedy any of the claims upon which

21

this action proceeds, the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s

22

motion must be denied.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Because none of the defendants have appeared in this action,

27

the Court does not have jurisdiction to issue an order prohibiting them from acting against Plaintiff

28

or requiring them to act.
2

1
2
3

III.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunction, filed on June 29, 2012, be DENIED.

4

These findings and recommendation are submitted to the United States District Judge

5

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

6

after being served with these findings and recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with

7

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

8

Recommendation." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

9

waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij

February 12, 2013

/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