Bryant v. Romero et al
Filing
167
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 124 Motion for Hearing to Request Injunctive Relief, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/21/16. (Verduzco, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KEVIN D. BRYANT,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
vs.
1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR HEARING TO
REQUEST INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(ECF No. 124.)
R. ROMERO, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
I.
BACKGROUND
18
Kevin D. Bryant (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
19
with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint
20
commencing this action on December 26, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds with
21
the First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on December 2, 2013, against defendants
22
Lieutenant C. Waddle and Correctional Officer E. Castellanos, on Plaintiff’s First Amendment
23
claim for retaliation. (ECF No. 16.) This case is in the discovery phase. Defendants’ motions
24
for summary judgment are pending. (ECF No. 92, 96.)
25
On July 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court hearing to request the protection of
26
an incarcerated witness he intends to depose. (ECF No. 124.) On August 12, 2016, Defendant
27
Castellanos filed an opposition. (ECF No. 130.) On August 19, 2016, Defendant Waddle
28
joined in the opposition. (ECF No. 131.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a motion
1
for a hearing to request preliminary injunctive relief. Plaintiff’s motion is now before the
2
Court.
3
II.
REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
4
A.
5
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of
6
equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure
7
the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v.
8
Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who
9
“demonstrates either (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable
10
harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.”
11
Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either
12
approach the plaintiff “must demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. Also,
13
an injunction should not issue if the plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the merits.” Id.
14
At a bare minimum, the plaintiff “must demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or
15
questions serious enough to require litigation.” Id.
Legal Standards
16
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court
17
must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95,
18
102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation
19
of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of
20
Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or
21
controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Thus, “[a] federal
22
court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject
23
matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not
24
before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir.
25
1985).
26
B.
27
Plaintiff requests a hearing on his request for the Court to arrange for protection for an
28
unidentified incarcerated witness he wishes to depose. Plaintiff argues that this witness’s life
Discussion
1
will be in danger when Defendants and defense counsel find out who he is and what he is going
2
to disclose. Plaintiff requests an order of protection and a temporary restraining order to
3
protect this witness.
4
In opposition, Defendants argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief
5
requested by Plaintiff. Presuming that Plaintiff seeks an order requiring the Secretary of the
6
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to ensure that Plaintiff’s witness
7
remains safe, Defendants argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue such an order because
8
the Secretary is not a party to this case, nor is the Secretary alleged to be involved with the
9
events at issue in this matter.
10
Defendants’ argument has merit. The Court only has jurisdiction in this case over the
11
parties who have appeared in the case and the subject matter of Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff
12
seeks an order directing prison officials to ensure the protection of his inmate witness. The
13
Court does not have jurisdiction to require prison officials to act on Plaintiff’s behalf in this
14
manner in this case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief must be
15
denied, and the Court shall not schedule a hearing for Plaintiff to make arguments in this
16
matter.
17
III.
18
19
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion for a
hearing to request preliminary injunctive relief, filed on July 28, 2016, is DENIED.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
October 21, 2016
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?