Manning v. Zamora et al

Filing 42

ORDER DENYING 41 Plaintiff's Motion for Court Order Directing Prison to Provide Plaintiff Access to Personal Property signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/13/2015. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEROY MANNING, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 1:12-cv-01621-LJO-GSA-PC ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COURT ORDER DIRECTING PRISON TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF ACCESS TO PERSONAL PROPERTY (Doc. 41.) vs. L. D. ZAMORA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 I. 21 BACKGROUND Leroy Manning (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 22 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action 23 on October 3, 2012. (Doc. 1.) 24 On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order directing prison officials 25 to provide him with his personal property, particularly his reading glasses. (Doc. 41.) 26 II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 27 The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of 28 equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure 1 1 the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. 2 Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who 3 Ademonstrates either (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable 4 harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.@ 5 Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either 6 approach the plaintiff Amust demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.@ Id. Also, an 7 injunction should not issue if the plaintiff Ashows no chance of success on the merits.@ Id. At a 8 bare minimum, the plaintiff Amust demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or 9 questions serious enough to require litigation.@ Id. 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, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation 13 of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of 14 Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or 15 controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Thus, A[a] federal 16 court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject 17 matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not 18 before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 19 1985). 20 Discussion 21 Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at High Desert State Prison in Susanville, California. 22 Plaintiff seeks a court order requiring prison officials there to provide him with his personal 23 property. However, the events at issue in Plaintiff’s Complaint allegedly occurred in 2011 at 24 Avenal State Prison in Avenal, California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there. 25 Plaintiff seeks would require present actions by persons who are not defendants in this action 26 and would not remedy any of the claims upon which this action proceeds. Therefore, the court 27 lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff=s motion must be denied. 28 /// 2 The order 1 2 3 III. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a court order directing prison officials to provide him with his property is DENIED. 4 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 13, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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?