Freeman v. Martin et al

Filing 29

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that Plaintiff's 28 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief be Denied for Lack of Jurisdiction; Objections, if any, Due within Fourteen (14) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/13/2017. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due by 5/1/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DEMETRIUS TERRELL FREEMAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
A. MARTIN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

1:14-cv-00575-LJO-GSA-PC
FINDING AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED FOR
LACK OF JURISDICTION
(ECF No. 28.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS

16
17
18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

Demetrius Terrell Freeman (Plaintiff), a federal prisoner proceeding pro se pursuant to

20

Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), filed the Complaint commencing this

21

action on April 21, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) On October 31, 2014, the case was dismissed for

22

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, and judgment was entered the same day. (ECF No. 12, 13.) On

23

March 10, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. (ECF No. 19.) On March 3, 2017, this case

24

was remanded to the district court by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, for a limited purpose.

25

(ECF No. 25.)

26

On February 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for the court to issue an order requiring

27

prison officials to return his personal property, which the court construes as a motion for

28

injunctive relief. (ECF No. 45.)
1

1

II.

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF --- JURISDICTION

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

U.S. at 102; Valley Forge Christian Coll., 454 U.S. at 471. “A federal court may issue an

9

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

10

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

11

Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985).

12

Discussion

13

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Yazoo City,

14

Mississippi (FCI-Yazoo). Plaintiff seeks a court order requiring prison staff at FCI-Yazoo to

15

return his personal property to him. However, the events at issue in Plaintiff’s complaint for

16

this action allegedly occurred at the United States Penitentiary in Atwater, California (USP-

17

Atwater), when Plaintiff was incarcerated there.

18

The order Plaintiff seeks would require persons who are not defendants in this action,

19

and who are not before the court, to act. Therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue the

20

order sought by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff=s motion should must be denied.

21

III.

22
23

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion

for a court order, filed on April 10, 2017, be DENIED for lack of jurisdiction.

24

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

25

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

26

(14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file

27

written objections with the court.

28

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

Such a document should be captioned "Objections to

2

1

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v.

2

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394

3

(9th Cir. 1991)).

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 13, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3