Bryant v. Romero et al

Filing 34

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Plaintiff's 30 Motion for Injunctive Relief (Objections to F&R Due Within Thirty Days); ORDER GRANTING 31 Motion for Extension of Time (Opposition to Motion to Revoke In Forma Pauperis Status Due Within Thirty Days), signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/29/2015, referred to Judge O'Neill. (Marrujo, C)

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
v.

Case No. 1:12-cv-02074 LJO DLB PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
[ECF No. 30]

14
15
R. ROMERO, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME
[ECF No. 31]

16
Defendants.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff Kevin D. Bryant (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this
civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on December 26, 2012. On
November 1, 2013, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint. On
December 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief and
extension of time filed on April 8, 2015, and April 20, 2015. In his motions, Plaintiff asks that the
Court issue an order directing Warden Dave Davey of California State Prison – Corcoran to
transport all of his property to California Men’s Colony. The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the
parties before it in this action, i.e., Defendants Waddle and Castellanos, and to Plaintiff’s claim of
retaliation arising from an incidents occurring between November 30, 2010, and August of 2011.
See, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998)
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(“[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s caseor-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of
establishing its existence.”) (citation omitted); American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Masto,
670 F.3d 1046, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[F]ederal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases
or controversies.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, any award of
equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which provides in relevant part,
“Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than
necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court
shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly
drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least
intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).
In this case, Warden Dave Davey is not a party to this action and therefore the Court has no
personal jurisdiction over Warden Dave Davey. In addition, the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the
issuance of orders that remedy the underlying legal claim. Id. Therefore, the Court will recommend
that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be denied.
Plaintiff has also requested an extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion
to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status and dismiss the case, filed on April 8, 2015. Good
cause having been presented and good cause appearing therefor, the Court will grant Plaintiff an
extension of thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file an opposition to
Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion
for preliminary injunction be DENIED.
These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30)
days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written
objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
2

1
2
3

shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised
that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District
Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.1991).

4
5
6
7

ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time is GRANTED. The
deadline for filing Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion to revoke in forma pauperis status
and dismiss the case is extended thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

May 29, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3