Coley v. Brazelton et al

Filing 25

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 9 , 11 , 19 , 23 Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunctive Relief be DENIED re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/8/2014. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ANDREW CALVIN COLEY,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.
P. D. BRAZELTON, et al.,

12

Defendants.

1:13-cv-00912-LJO-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF=S
MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED
(Docs. 9, 11, 19, 23.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS

13
14

I.

BACKGROUND

15

Andrew Calvin Coley (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner in the custody of the California

16

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with

17

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

18

this action on June 5, 2013. (Doc. 1.) On July 11, 2013, August 5, 2013, September 25, 2013,

19

and November 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed motions for preliminary injunctive relief. (Docs. 9, 11,

20

19, 23.)

21

II.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

22

AA preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.@

23

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation

24

omitted). AA plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to

25

succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary

26

relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public

27

interest.@ Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear

28

showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
1

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

Arelief [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

Plaintiff requests court orders requiring officials at Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP)

13

in Coalinga, California, and the California Medical Facility (CMF) in Vacaville, California, to

14

stop their retaliation, discrimination, and intimidation against Plaintiff, and to provide Plaintiff

15

with adequate medical care and access to the law library.

16

With respect to officials at CMF, Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief against them

17

must be denied because such relief would not remedy any of the claims in Plaintiff’s

18

Complaint. The events at issue in Plaintiff’s Complaint allegedly occurred at PVSP when

19

Plaintiff was incarcerated there.1 Because court orders against officials at CMF would not

20

remedy any of the claims upon which this action proceeds, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue

21

such orders, and Plaintiff=s motions must be denied.

22

With respect to officials at PVSP, Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief against them

23

are moot because Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at PVSP and therefore is not subject to

24

conduct by those officials.
Thus, Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief must be denied.

25
26

///

27
28

1

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at CMF. (Court Record.)
2

1

III.

RECOMMENDATIONS

2

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff=s motions

3

for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on July 11, 2013, August 5, 2013, September 25, 2013,

4

and November 7, 2013, be DENIED.

5

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

6

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

7

thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may

8

file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned AObjections to

9

Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

10

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court=s order.

11

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

16
17
18

January 8, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3