Anderson v. Cahlander et al

Filing 16

ORDER Disregarding 2 Motion for Extention of Time to File Fee Waiver as Moot; ORDER Denying 14 Motion for Service of Documents; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that Plaintiff's 8 Motion for Injunctive Relief be Denied signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 06/06/2013. Referred to Judge O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 6/24/2013.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DION ANDERSON,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.
L. CAHLANDER, et al.,

14

Case No. 1:12-cv-01966-LJO-DLB PC
ORDER DISREGARDING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE FEE
WAIVER AS MOOT (ECF No. 2)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS (ECF No. 14)

Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE
DENIED (ECF No. 8)

15
16
17

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS

18
Plaintiff Dion Anderson (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

19
20

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

21

in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for

22

extension of time to apply for waiver of the filing fee. ECF No. 2. On January 7, 2013, Plaintiff

23

filed a motion for injunctive relief. ECF No. 8. On March 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for

24

notice of service. ECF No. 14.

25

I.

26

Motion for Extension of Time
Plaintiff moves for an extension of time to file his application for waiver of the filing fee.

27

Plaintiff subsequently filed an application on January 7, 2013. ECF No. 9. Accordingly, it is

28

HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time is disregarded as moot.
1

1

II.

Motion for Notice of Service Documents

2

Plaintiff notifies the Court that he attempted to obtain service documents from Kings County

3

Superior Court in support of his alleged notice of removal of this action from state court. Plaintiff’s

4

motion is denied. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), removal of proceedings from state to federal

5

court is available only to defendants.

6

III.

7

Motion for Injunctive Relief
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the

8

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

9

balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v.

10

Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted). The purpose of

11

preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo or to prevent irreparable injury pending the

12

resolution of the underlying claim. Sierra On-line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415,

13

1422 (9th Cir. 1984).

14

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court must

15

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

16

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

17

471 (1982). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear

18

the matter in question. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102. Thus, “[a] federal court may issue an injunction

19

[only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it

20

may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States

21

Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985); Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d).

22

Plaintiff moves for the Court to enjoin trust account office at Corcoran State Prison to

23

produce Plaintiff’s financial statement. The trust account office is not a party to this action, and thus

24

the Court lacks jurisdiction over the party. Additionally, by separate order, Plaintiff fails to state a

25

claim, and thus has failed to demonstrate likelihood of success on the merits. Finally, Plaintiff

26

subsequently submitted his prison trust account statement on February 25, 2013, rendering Plaintiff’s

27

motion moot. Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive

28

relief, filed January 7, 2013, be 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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days

3

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections

4

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

5

Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

6

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th

7

Cir. 1991).

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

June 6, 2013

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11

DEAC_Signature-END:

12

3b142a

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