Pappas v. North Kern State Prison et al
Filing
32
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 31 Motion for Preliminary Injunction Relief, For Lack of Jurisdiction, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/26/2015. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
NICHOLAS CHRISTOPHER PAPPAS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
vs.
1:14-cv-00109-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF, FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
(Doc. 31.)
NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
I.
BACKGROUND
20
Nicholas Christopher Pappas (“Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this
21
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this
22
action on January 27, 2014. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s original
23
Complaint against defendant Correctional Officer (C/O) Lopez (“Defendant”) for use of
24
excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 (Doc. 1).
25
26
On February 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed motion for preliminary injunctive relief, which is
now before the court. (Doc. 31.)
27
28
1
On September 29, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants
from this action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 12.)
1
1
II.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
2
AA preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.@
3
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation
4
omitted). AA plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to
5
succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
6
relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public
7
interest.@ Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear
8
showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
9
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for
10
preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary
11
matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S.
12
95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for
13
Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the
14
Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter
15
in question.
16
3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the
17
Arelief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of
18
the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the
19
Federal right.@
Id.
Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. '
20
Discussion
21
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the California Correctional Institution (CCI) in
22
Tehachapi, California. Plaintiff seeks a court order requiring prison staff at CCI to stop their
23
retaliation and other misconduct against him.
24
“A federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the
25
parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights
26
of persons not before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719,
27
727 (9th Cir. 1985).
28
///
2
1
Plaintiff’s Complaint now proceeds against defendant Lopez for use of excessive force,
2
based on an incident allegedly occurring on September 20, 2013, at North Kern State Prison in
3
Delano, California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there. The order Plaintiff seeks would bar
4
persons who are not defendants in this action, and who are not before the court, from acting and
5
would not remedy any of the claims upon which this action proceeds. Therefore, the court
6
lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff=s motion must be denied.
7
III.
CONCLUSION
8
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s
9
motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on February 25, 2015, is DENIED for lack of
10
jurisdiction.
11
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
February 26, 2015
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?