Hawkins v. Ibarra et al

Filing 26

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Denial of 24 Plaintiff's Motion for Enforcement of Court Orders and Affirmative Relief Related to Use of Force and Disciplinary Measures, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/13/15. Referred to Judge Ishii. Fourteen-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

HOMER EARL HAWKINS,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.
S. IBARRA, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:14-cv-00009-AWI-BAM (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF
COURT ORDERS AND AFFIRMATIVE
RELIEF RELATED TO USE OF FORCE
AND DISCIPLINARY MEASURES
(ECF No. 24)
FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

16
17

I.

18

Plaintiff Homer Earl Hawkins (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding in forma

Background

19

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against

20

Defendant S. Ibarra for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United

21

States Constitution. The events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred at Pleasant Valley

22

State Prison.

23

On February 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion for Enforcement of

24

Court Orders and Affirmative Relief Related to Use of Force and Disciplinary Measures.” (ECF

25

No. 24.) Neither the nature of relief nor the basis for relief is sufficiently clear from Plaintiff’s

26

moving papers. It appears that Plaintiff is attempting to obtain some form of injunctive relief

27

related to his purported disabilities, medical care, and need for medical accessories.

28
1

1

II.

Discussion

2

A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief “must establish that he is likely to succeed on the

3

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

4

balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v.

5

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (citations

6

omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled

7

to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted).

8

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, in considering a request for

9

injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have

10

before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103

11

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

12

and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the Court does not have an

13

actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Lyons, 461

14

U.S. at 102; Valley Forge Christian Coll., 454 U.S. at 471. Thus, “[a] federal court may issue an

15

injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction

16

over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.”

17

Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir.1983); see Fed. R. Civ. P.

18

65(d) (listing persons bound by injunction).

19

Plaintiff’s action concerns allegations against Defendant S. Ibarra for excessive force

20

while Plaintiff was housed at Pleasant Valley State Prison. However, the request for injunctive

21

relief appears to relate to Plaintiff’s current conditions of confinement at the California

22

Substance Abuse Treatment Facility. The Court thus lacks jurisdiction in this action to issue an

23

order directed at personnel and staff at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility.

24

III.

25

Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for

26

Conclusion and Recommendation

injunctive relief be DENIED.

27

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

28

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within
2

1

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may

2

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to

3

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

4

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the

5

magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir.

6

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 13, 2015

9

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3