Meador v. Aye et al

Filing 85

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 58 , 59 , 64 , 65 , 73 , 80 Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunctive Relief be DENIED re 30 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 8/9/2016. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GORDON D. MEADOR, 12 13 14 15 Case No. 1:14-cv-00006 DAD DLB PC Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF v. K. AYE, et al., [Doc Nos. 58, 59, 64, 65, 73, 80] Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Gordon D. Meador (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On September 22, 2015, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint in this action. On 20 March 24, 2016, defendants filed an answer. On May 5, 2016, the magistrate judge issued a 21 discovery and scheduling order. 22 Plaintiff has filed several motions concerning his files, legal property, legal supplies and 23 personal property. On May 2, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for an order directing the Kern 24 Valley State Prison (“KVSP”) litigation coordinator to recover his files and law books from his 25 ex-cellmate. On May 2, 2016, plaintiff filed a second motion for an order directing the CDCR, 26 the litigation coordinator, and/or warden Pfeiffer to provide him with his personal property 27 including his legal property and materials. Plaintiff contends that he has not been given all of his 28 legal property as well as supplies while in administrative segregation. On May 16, 2016, 1 1 plaintiff filed a third motion for an order directing the CDCR to provide him with legal supplies 2 as well as access to legal materials. Defendants have not filed a response. 3 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 4 America, 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673 (1994), and the court lacks jurisdiction to issue any 5 orders regarding plaintiff’s current conditions of confinement, including access to legal property, 6 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130 7 (1992); Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009); 8 Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). 9 In addition, on May 16, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order 10 concerning an alleged conspiracy to have him seriously hurt or killed. Plaintiff alleges that 11 certain prison staff members have drafted false allegations that plaintiff is a “historical child 12 molester” and then generated chronos to gang members on the sensitive needs yard for purposes 13 of having plaintiff hurt or killed. Plaintiff alleges that he informed Garcia who thought it was 14 funny, but refused to provide plaintiff with his arrest FBI rap sheet. Plaintiff also points to a 15 report drafted by Dr. Heath. He requests an emergency preliminary injunction concerning Dr. 16 Heath and Dr. William Rhort. However, Garcia, Heath, and Rhort are not defendants in this 17 action, and the court lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested injunctive relief. 18 Also, on June 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for an emergency preliminary injunction. 19 In this motion, Plaintiff asks for an injunction concerning an “Officer Mack” at Kern Valley 20 State Prison who Plaintiff alleges has attempted to kill or harm him. Plaintiff is currently at 21 Lancaster. Plaintiff’s request is without merit since Officer Mack is not a defendant in this case. 22 In addition, Plaintiff is now in Lancaster, so the issues concerning Officer Mack are moot. 23 On July 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed another motion for emergency injunction. Plaintiff 24 complains that staff at Lancaster prison have taken his legal mail. In addition, Plaintiff states his 25 life will be in danger if he is returned to Kern Valley State Prison. For the same reasons 26 previously stated, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested injunctive relief. 27 RECOMMENDATION 28 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary 2 1 injunctive relief be DENIED. 2 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 3 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) 4 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written 5 objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 6 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections 7 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 8 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.1991). 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Dennis August 9, 2016 L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?