Carmichael v. The GEO Group Inc. et al

Filing 33

ORDER Regarding 32 Plaintiff's Declaration, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/26/2014. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL CARMICHAEL,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
W. WILSON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12cv01913 LJO DLB (PC)
ORDER REGARDING
PLAINTIFF’S DECLARATION
(Document 32)

Plaintiff Michael Carmichael (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

18

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil

19

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeding on the following cognizable

20

claims: (1) violation of the First Amendment against Defendants Meyer, Pressley, Wilson and

21

Marshall; (2) violation of RLUIPA against Defendants Aguilar, Meyer, Pressley, Wilson and

22

Marshall; and (3) violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendants Meyer, Pressley and

23

Marshall.

24

The action is currently in discovery.

25

On May 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a declaration in which he sets forth what he believes to be two

26

instances of retaliation- one involving the denial of Priority Legal User status and the other relating to

27
28
1

1
2
3
4
5

nutritionally deficient meals. Plaintiff does not request relief, but rather asks the Court what motions
should be filed to address the retaliation.
Generally, motions for injunctive relief can be used to request relief during the pendency of an
action. However, Plaintiff is informed that the Court’s jurisdiction in granting injunctive relief is
limited to the parties and claims involved in this action. See e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better

6

Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998) (“[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and

7

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

8

invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence.”) (citation omitted);

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Masto, 670 F.3d 1046, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2012)
(“[F]ederal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies.”) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff’s complaint arises from alleged deprivations under the First Amendment and
Fourteenth Amendment related to his ability to practice his religion. The Defendants under the
jurisdiction of this Court are Defendants Meyer, Pressley, Wilson, Marshall and Aguilar.
Therefore, Plaintiff should keep the limitations on injunctive relief in mind in deciding whether
such a motion would be proper under the circumstances. If the events for which he requires assistance
are not related to those in this action, Plaintiff may file a separate action when appropriate.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

May 26, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2