Valencia v. Gibson et al

Filing 21

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Plaintiff's 20 Request for Court Order for Prison Officials to Forward Legal Material signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 04/02/2014. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 4/21/2014. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ABEL VALENCIA,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
CONNIE GIPSON, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01446-AWI-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
COURT ORDER FOR PRISON OFFICIALS TO
FORWARD LEGAL MATERIAL
[ECF No. 20]

Plaintiff Abel Valencia is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a court order directing prison officials

20

at Corcoran State Prison to forward Plaintiff his legal material, property, and copies of civil complaint.

21

(ECF NO. 20.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a request for a preliminary injunction.

22

I.

23

DISCUSSION

24

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

25

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). AA plaintiff

26

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

27

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

28
1

1

his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.@ Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction

2

may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 23.

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

question. Id. A[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article

9

III=s case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of

10

establishing its existence.@ Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env=t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04 (1998).

11

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

12

Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the Arelief [sought] is narrowly drawn,

13

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

14

means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.@

15

On February 24, 2014, the undersigned issued a recommendation that this action proceed on

16

Plaintiff’s due process challenge relating to his validation as a gang member and retaliation claim

17

only, and all other claims be dismissed from the action for failure to state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff

18

is advised that the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in

19

general or other Plaintiff’s property issues. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493

20

(2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is

21

limited to the parties in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding.

22

Summer, 555 U.S. at 493; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. Because there is no viable claim relating to

23

Plaintiff’s property, his request for injunctive relief must be denied.

24

II.

25

RECOMMENDATION

26

Based on the foregoing,

27

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction be

28

DENIED.
2

1

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

2

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within fifteen (15)

3

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written

4

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to Magistrate Judge=s

5

Findings and Recommendations.@ Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

6

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court=s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

7

Cir. 1991).

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 2, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3