Thompson v. Adams et al

Filing 54

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending 51 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief be Denied for Lack of Jurisdiction and Request Assistance of Litigation Coordinator, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 4/25/16. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R Due Within Thirty Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

Case No. 1:13-cv-00655-AWI-SKO (PC)

10
DeWAYNE THOMPSON,
11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
ADAMS, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF=S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE
DENIED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION and
REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE OF LITIGATION
COORDINATOR
(Doc. 51)
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

16
17
18
Plaintiff, DeWayne Thompson, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and informa pauperis
19
in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request
20
for court order requiring prison officials to provide his legal property and personal stationary for
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

adequate legal access. (Doc. 51.) This is construed as a motion for injunctive relief.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for
preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it
have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103
S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church
and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or
controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective

28
1

1

relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. ' 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which

2

requires that the Court find the Arelief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than

3

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

4

correct the violation of the Federal right.@
The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in

5
6

general or over the conditions of Plaintiff=s confinement. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555

7

U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The

8

Court=s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the cognizable legal claims upon

9

which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 492-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.
Plaintiff does not seek the temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction

10
11

against any of the Defendants in this action. AA federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it

12

has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not

13

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

14

Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Thus, Plaintiff=s

15

motion must be denied for lack of jurisdiction over the "prison officials” whom Plaintiff seeks to

16

compel to provide him access to his legal property and personal stationary supplies.
Plaintiff is not precluded from attempting to state cognizable claims in a new action if he

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

believes his civil rights are being violated beyond his pleadings in this action. The issue is not that
Plaintiff=s allegations are not serious, or that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief if sought in the
proper forum. The seriousness of Plaintiff=s accusations concerning obstructing Plaintiff's access
to his legal materials and stationary supplies cannot and do not overcome what is a jurisdictional
bar. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 103-04 (A[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability
constitutes the core of Article III=s case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking
federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence.@) This action is simply not the
proper vehicle for conveyance of the relief Plaintiff seeks. 1 The Litigation Office, however, is

26
1

27
28

Plaintiff=s motion also fails to make the requisite showing, supported by admissible evidence, to obtain a
preliminary injunction. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20-4, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376
(2008). However, it is unnecessary to reach the merits of Plaintiff=s motion in light of the fact that the jurisdictional
issue is fatal to his requests for relief. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493, 129 S.Ct. at 1149; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

2

1

requested to look into the matter and to facilitate Plaintiff=s access to his legal property and

2

writing materials as provided for indigent inmates, as well as his access to the law library and

3

other legal resources as necessary for the pendency of this action.2

4

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff=s motion for injunctive

5

relief, filed November 3, 2015, be denied for lack of jurisdiction. However, the Clerk's Office is

6

directed to forward a copy of this order and Plaintiff's motion to the Litigation Coordinator at

7

California State Prison, Sacramento, so that they might facilitate Plaintiff’s access to his legal

8

property and stationary supplies as provided for indigent inmates.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

9
10

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty

11

(30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file

12

written objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned

13

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that

14

failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.

15

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d

16

1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 25, 2016

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2

28

How access is best facilitated in light of Plaintiff=s housing status and other custody or classification factors is
left to the sound discretion of prison officials.

3