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
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?