Garcia v. Beard et al

Filing 18

ORDER DENYING 13 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, for Lak of Jurisdiction, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/9/15. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FELIPE GARCIA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 vs. 1:14-cv-00625-LJO-GSA-PC ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION (Doc. 13.) JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Felipe Garcia ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 21 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on April 22 28, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On August 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunctive 23 relief. (Doc. 13.) 24 II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 25 The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of 26 equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure 27 the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. 28 Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who 1 1 Ademonstrates either (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable 2 harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.@ 3 Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either 4 approach the plaintiff Amust demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.@ Id. Also, an 5 injunction should not issue if the plaintiff Ashows no chance of success on the merits.@ Id. At a 6 bare minimum, the plaintiff Amust demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or 7 questions serious enough to require litigation.@ Id. 8 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court 9 must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 10 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation 11 of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of 12 Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or 13 controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Thus, A[a] federal 14 court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject 15 matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not 16 before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 17 1985). 18 Discussion 19 Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at California State Prison-Corcoran (CSP-COR) in 20 Corcoran, California. Plaintiff seeks a court order prohibiting prison officials at CSP-COR 21 from housing him in a particular housing unit, denying him access to the prison law library and 22 legal resources, retaliating against him, threatening him, and making false accusations against 23 him. However, the events at issue in Plaintiff’s Complaint allegedly occurred in 2013 and 2014 24 at the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California, when Plaintiff was 25 incarcerated there. The order Plaintiff seeks would require present actions by persons who are 26 not defendants in this action and would not remedy any of the claims upon which this action 27 proceeds. Therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff, and 28 Plaintiff=s motion must be denied. 2 1 2 3 III. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on August 6, 2014, is DENIED. 4 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 9, 2015 /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

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?