Gutierrez v. Gutierrez

Filing 17

ORDER DENYING 15 Plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory Relief or Preliminary Injunction, for Want of Jurisdiction signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/8/2014. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

G. J. GUTIERREZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
A. GUTIERREZ,

15

1:13-cv-00421-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF OR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, FOR WANT
OF JURISDICTION
(Doc. 15.)

Defendant.

16
17
18
19

I.

G. J. Gutierrez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

20
21
22

23

BACKGROUND

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This case now proceeds on the initial Complaint filed by
Plaintiff on March 22, 2013, against defendant Correctional Officer (C/O) A. Gutierrez, for use
of excessive force and failure to protect Plaintiff. (Doc. 1.)
On May 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for declaratory relief or preliminary injunction,

24
25

which is now before the court. (Doc. 15.)

26

II.

JURISDICTION

27

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court

28

must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95,
1

1

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

2

of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of

3

Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or

4

controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Thus, A[a] federal

5

court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject

6

matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not

7

before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir.

8

1985).

9

Discussion

10

Plaintiff seeks a court order declaring that Officer Kenndy, a prison guard handling

11

prisoner-legal mail at Pleasant Valley State Prison, is interfering with Plaintiff’s mail and

12

destroying Plaintiff’s legal property. In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction

13

stopping Officer Kenndy’s conduct.

14

Plaintiff’s motion must be denied, because the court orders requested by Plaintiff would

15

not remedy any of the claims upon which this action proceeds. This case proceeds only against

16

defendant G. J. Gutierrez for acts of excessive force and failure to protect which occurred

17

before this case was filed. Plaintiff now requests court orders protecting him from present and

18

future acts by Officer Kenndy, who is not a defendant in this action. Because such an order

19

would not remedy any of the claims upon which this action proceeds, the court lacks

20

jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff.

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Because Officer Kenndy is not a

25

party to this action, the Court does not have jurisdiction to issue a declaratory order or

26

preliminary injunction addressing Officer Kenndy’s conduct.

27

///

28

///
2

1

III.

CONCLUSION

2

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion for

3

declaratory relief or preliminary injunction, filed on May 5, 2014, is DENIED for want of

4

jurisdiction.

5
6
7

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 8, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
3