Willard v. Moreno

Filing 11

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief be Denied for Lack of Jurisdiction signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/18/2014. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due by 7/7/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA A. WILLARD, Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 Case No. 1:14-cv-00521-LJO-JLT (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF=S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION MORENO, (Doc. 9) Defendant. 15 15-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE 16 17 Plaintiff, Joshua A. Willard, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and informa pauperis in 18 19 this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on April 14, 2014. 20 (Doc. 1.) On June 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of imminent danger in which he asserts that 21 correctional officers are using other inmates to carry out acts of violence against him in retaliation 22 for Plaintiff having filed complaints. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff requests the Court to "please help" and 23 that his concerns be brought to the attention of the warden or associate warden. (Id.) This is 24 construed as a motion for injunctive relief. 25 This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's claim for relief under section 1983 against 26 Defendant Moreno, R.N. for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs in 27 violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 10.) 28 /// 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 matter, it 3 have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 4 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church 5 and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or 6 controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective 7 relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. ' 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which 8 requires that the Court find the Arelief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than 9 necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to 10 correct the violation of the Federal right.@ 11 Regardless, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 12 officials in general or over the conditions of Plaintiff=s confinement. Summers v. Earth Island 13 Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 14 2010). The Court=s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the cognizable legal 15 claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 492-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 16 969. 17 Plaintiff does not seek the temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction 18 against the sole Defendant in this action. AA federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has 19 personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not 20 attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States 21 Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Thus, Plaintiff=s 22 motion must be denied for lack of jurisdiction over the "officers" who Plaintiff asserts are using 23 other inmates to carry out acts of violence against him. 24 Plaintiff is not precluded from attempting to state cognizable claims in a new action if he 25 believes his civil rights are being violated beyond his pleadings in this action. The issue is not that 26 Plaintiff=s allegations are not serious, or that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief if sought in the 27 proper forum. The seriousness of Plaintiff=s accusations concerning obstructing Plaintiff's access 28 to his legal materials and the law library cannot and do not overcome what is a jurisdictional bar. 2 1 Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 103-04 (A[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability 2 constitutes the core of Article III=s case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking 3 federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence.@) This action is simply not the 4 proper vehicle for conveyance of the relief Plaintiff seeks. 1 5 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff=s motion for injunctive 6 relief, filed June 9, 2014 (Doc. 9), be denied for lack of jurisdiction. However, it is also 7 recommended that the Clerk's Office be directed to forward a copy of this order and Plaintiff's 8 motion to the Warden's office and to Litigation Coordinator at Kern Valley State Prison via 9 facsimile to make them aware of Plaintiff's safety concerns. 10 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 11 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within 15 12 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 13 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to Magistrate Judge=s 14 Findings and Recommendations.@ Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 15 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court=s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 16 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 18, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff=s motion also fails to make the requisite showing, supported by admissible evidence, to obtain a preliminary injunction. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20-4, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008). However, it is unnecessary to reach the merits of Plaintiff=s motions in light of the fact that the jurisdictional issue is fatal to his requests for relief. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493, 129 S.Ct. at 1149; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 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?