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