Maldonado v. Committee Counsel Wasco R/C et al

Filing 17

ORDER Denying 16 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A Boone on 4/1/13. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

ISRAEL MALDONADO,

10
11

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01670-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

v.
(ECF No. 16)

12

COMMITTEE COUNSEL WASCO R/C,
et al.,

13
Defendants.
14

/

15
Plaintiff Israel Maldonado (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma
16
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on August 15,
17
2012. (ECF No. 1.) On March 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion “implementing order for sanction
18
supplement order.” (ECF No. 16.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s request as a motion for a
19
preliminary injunction.
20
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right. Winter v.
21
Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 9, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation and quotation
22
marks omitted). For each form of relief sought in federal court, Plaintiff must establish standing.
23
Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009) (citation omitted);
24
Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). This requires
25
Plaintiff to show that he is under threat of suffering an injury in fact that is concrete and
26
particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be
27
fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial
28
1

1

decision will prevent or redress the injury. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493 (quotation marks and citation

2

omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

3

Further, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which

4

provides in relevant part, “[p]rospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions

5

shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular

6

plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court

7

finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation

8

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

9

right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).

10

Plaintiff is seeking an injunction to have his personal property returned and to be released

11

from custody. The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials

12

in general or over Plaintiff’s property issues. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

13

The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the viable legal claims upon

14

which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

15

Additionally, if Plaintiff wishes to challenge the legality of his incarceration, he must timely

16

file a writ of habeas corpus. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78, 125 S.Ct. 1242 (2005) (“This

17

Court has held that a prisoner in state custody cannot use a § 1983 action to challenge ‘the fact or

18

duration of his confinement.’ He must seek federal habeas corpus relief (or appropriate state relief)

19

instead.”) (citations omitted).

20
21

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction be
DENIED.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated:
i1eed4

April 1, 2013
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2