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