Armstrong v. Agurerralde et al

Filing 16

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 12 Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction be DENIED re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/14/2013. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRADY K. ARMSTRONG,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
J. AGUERERRALDE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
[ECF No. 12]

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting a preliminary injunction and

19
20

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01622-LJO-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff Brady K. Armonstrong is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

temporary restraining order.
Plaintiff contends that he has been continuously subject to reprisal such as “food poisoning,

21
22

battery, assault, interf[erence] with medical examination and/or procedure previously medically

23

prescribed” by prison officials at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at Corcoran State

24

Prison.

25

I.

26

DISCUSSION

27

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

28

Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). “A
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22

5

(citation omitted).

6

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

7

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

8

an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983);

9

Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464,

10

471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it,

11

it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. “[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and

12

redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, and the party

13

invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a

14

Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998). Requests for prospective relief are further

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

Federal right.”

19

In an order issued concurrently herewith, the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with

20

leave to amend. As a consequence, there is no actual case or controversy before the Court at this time.

21

Therefore, the Court lacks the jurisdiction to issue the orders sought by Plaintiff. Summers v. Earth

22

Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493,129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009); Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109,

23

1119 (9th Cir. 2009). Furthermore, the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint occurred while he was

24

housed at Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California, and Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief for

25

actions against prison officials which occurred at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at

26

Corcoran State Prison. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion does not show serious questions going to merits of

27

this action because it relates to entirety different events. Plaintiff lacks standing to seek relief directed

28

at remedying his current conditions of confinement at Corcoran State Prison. Zenith Radio Corp v.
2

1

Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969).

2
3

II.

4

RECOMMENDATION

5

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary

6
7

injunction be DENIED.
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District Court

8

Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of

9

Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days

10

after being served with a copy, Plaintiff may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on

11

all parties. Such a document should be captioned AObjections to Magistrate Judge=s Findings and

12

Recommendation.@ The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge=s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '

13

636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

14

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

15
16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 14, 2013
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3