Sheehan v. CDCR - Jamestown et al
Filing
18
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, filed November 1, 2012, be DENIED with Prejudice for Lack of Jurisdiciton re 1 Complaint filed by Randall Lee Sheeha; referred to Judge O'Neill, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 05/21/2013. Objections to F&R due by 6/24/2013(Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RANDALL LEE SHEEHAN,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
CDCR-JAMESTOWN, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:12-cv-02060-AWI-BAM PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(ECF No. 14)
Plaintiff Randall Lee Sheehan is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
18
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant
19
motion to prevent future retaliation by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at
20
Corcoran State Prison. (ECF No. 14.)
21
Plaintiff’s request is a form of injunctive relief. “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary
22
remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct.
23
365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he
24
is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
25
preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public
26
interest.” Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that
27
the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
28
1
1
For each form of relief sought in federal court, Plaintiff must establish standing. Mayfield v.
2
United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.denied, 131 S. Ct. 503 (2010). To seek
3
injunctive relief, Plaintiff must “show that he is under threat of suffering ‘injury in fact’ that is
4
concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it
5
must be fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable
6
judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.” Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 129 S. Ct.
7
1142, 1149 (2009) (citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969 (citation omitted).
8
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary
9
injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it
10
an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge
11
Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If
12
the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in
13
question. Valley Forge Christian Coll., 454 U.S. at 471; also Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,
14
523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). The Prison Litigation Reform Act also places limitations on injunctive relief.
15
Section 3626(a)(1)(A) provides in relevant part that “[p]rospective relief in any civil action with
16
respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the
17
Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective
18
relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to
19
correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the
20
violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).
21
The case or controversy requirement cannot be met in light of the fact that the issue Plaintiff
22
seeks to remedy at Corcoran State Prison bears no relation to his claim that his due process rights were
23
violated by Lt. E. Cervantes at CDCR-Jamestown. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102; 18 U.S.C. §
24
3626(a)(1)(A); also Summers, 129 S. Ct. at1148-49; Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 102-04, 107. Because the
25
case-or-controversy requirement cannot be met, the pendency of this action provides no basis upon
26
which to award Plaintiff injunctive relief. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 102-103.
27
28
Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed
November 1, 2012, be DENIED with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
2
1
These findings and recommendations shall be submitted to the United States District Judge
2
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days
3
after being served with the findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with
4
the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
5
Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
6
waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
7
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
May 21, 2013
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?