Bryant v. Romero et al

Filing 171

ORDER denying 156 Motion to Compel KC's Court Reporting Service to report depositions and for sanctions signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/25/2016. (Lundstrom, T)

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.
R. ROMERO, et al.,

15

1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL KC’S COURT REPORTING
SERVICE TO REPORT DEPOSITIONS,
AND FOR SANCTIONS
(ECF No. 156.)

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

I.

BACKGROUND

20

Kevin D. Bryant (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

21

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint

22

commencing this action on December 26, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds with

23

the First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on December 2, 2013, against defendants

24

Lieutenant C. Waddle and Correctional Officer E. Castellanos, on Plaintiff’s claim for

25

retaliation. (ECF No. 16.) The events in the complaint allegedly occurred at Kern Valley State

26

Prison (KVSP) when Plaintiff was incarcerated there in the custody of the California

27

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). This case is in the discovery phase.

28
1

On September 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel KC’s Court Reporting

1
2

service to report depositions, and for sanctions. (ECF No. 156.) Plaintiff’s motion is now

3

before the Court.

4
5

II.

MOTION TO COMPEL KC’S COURT REPORTING SERVICE TO REPORT
DEPOSITIONS, AND FOR SANCTIONS
Plaintiff seeks a Court order compelling KC’s Court Reporting service (“KC’s) to report

6
7

Plaintiff’s depositions. (ECF No. 156.)

8

contract with Plaintiff to report the depositions Plaintiff intends to take. Plaintiff requests the

9

Court to compel KC’s to report his depositions and to impose sanctions if KC’s refuses to do

10

Plaintiff claims that KC’s attempted to breach their

so.

11

It appears to the Court that Plaintiff’s motion is moot, because KC’s has now agreed to

12

honor the contract and report his depositions. On September 29, 2016, Plaintiff notified the

13

Court that KC’s agreed to conduct depositions but needs Plaintiff’s credit card information.

14

(ECF No. 162 at 6.) If Plaintiff’s motion is moot, it must be denied. Moreover, even if

15

Plaintiff’s motion is not moot, it must be denied because the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant

16

the relief Plaintiff seeks against KC’s.

17

A.

18

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of

19

equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure

20

the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v.

21

Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who

22

“demonstrates either (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable

23

harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.”

24

Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either

25

approach the plaintiff “must demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. Also,

26

an injunction should not issue if the plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the merits.” Id.

27

At a bare minimum, the plaintiff “must demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or

28

questions serious enough to require litigation.” Id.

Preliminary Injunctive Relief

2

1

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for

2

preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary

3

matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S.

4

95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for

5

Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the

6

Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter

7

in question.

8

3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the

9

“relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of

10

the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the

11

Federal right.”

Id.

Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. '

12

B.

13

Plaintiff claims that KC’s attempted to breach their contract with Plaintiff. In support,

14

Plaintiff has submitted a letter to Plaintiff dated June 16, 2016, from KC’s office manager,

15

Carol Lancaster, notifying Plaintiff that KC’s services for reporting Plaintiff’s depositions had

16

been reserved because KC’s had received his credit card information. (ECF No. 156 at 8, Exh.

17

A.)

18

Lancaster, notified Plaintiff that KC’s had changed its mind and decided not to report his

19

depositions. (Id. at 10 (Exh. A.) The letter stated, “We are in receipt of your five deposition

20

notices, but regret that we must decline reporting your depositions [because K.C’s is] not

21

familiar with the procedures in matters like this [and] the cost would be prohibitive.” (Id.) On

22

September 11, 2016, Plaintiff wrote a letter to KC’s asking them not to breach the contract.

23

(Id. at 6-7.)

Discussion

Then, in a letter to Plaintiff dated September 8, 2016, KC’s office manager, Carol

24

The Court cannot grant the relief Plaintiff seeks. Because KC’s is not a defendant in

25

this action, the Court does not have jurisdiction to issue an order requiring them to act on

26

Plaintiff’s behalf.

27

jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to

28

determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration

“[A] federal court may [only] issue an injunction if it has personal

3

1

Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Moreover, the relief sought by

2

Plaintiff would not remedy any of the claims upon which this case proceeds. This case

3

proceeds only on Plaintiff’s retaliation claims against Defendants Waddles and Castellanos.

4

Therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to compel KC’s to report Plaintiff’s depositions, and

5

Plaintiff’s motion must be denied.

6

III.

CONCLUSION

7

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel

8

KC’s Court Reporting service to report his depositions, filed on September 15, 2016, is

9

DENIED.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 25, 2016

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4