Howard v. Chapa, et al.
Filing
9
ORDER Denying Motions For Immediate Service Of Process And For Sanctions (Doc. 8 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/2/2015. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CHANDELL L. HOWARD,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
vs.
1:14-cv-00928-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
IMMEDIATE SERVICE OF PROCESS
AND FOR SANCTIONS
(Doc. 8.)
E. CHAPA, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
I.
BACKGROUND
18
Chandell L. Howard (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
19
pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the
20
Complaint commencing this action on June 17, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff
21
consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c), and no
22
other parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 5.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of
23
the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all
24
proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local
25
Rule Appendix A(k)(3).
26
On March 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for immediate service of process in this
27
action by the United States Marshal. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff also requested the imposition of
28
sanctions against prison officials. (Id.)
1
1
II.
2
3
SERVICE OF PROCESS
Plaintiff requests an order directing the United States Marshal to serve process upon the
defendants in this action. However, it is not yet time for service in this action.
4
The court will, sua sponte, direct the United States Marshal to serve Plaintiff’s
5
Complaint only after the court has screened the complaint and determined that it contains
6
cognizable claims for relief against the named defendants. The court is required by law to
7
screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer
8
or employee of a governmental entity, such as the instant action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
9
' 1983. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the
10
prisoner has raised claims that are legally Afrivolous or malicious,@ that fail to state a claim
11
upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is
12
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(b)(1),(2).
Plaintiff’s Complaint awaits the requisite screening by the court. Therefore, it is not
13
14
time for service in this action and Plaintiff’s motion for service shall be denied.
15
III.
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS -- JURISDICTION
16
Plaintiff requests a court order imposing sanctions against prison officials at Pelican
17
Bay State Prison (PBSP) in Crescent City, California, where he is currently incarcerated.
18
Plaintiff argues that he is being abused and denied basic human needs and necessities, such as
19
razors, hair clippers, clean clothing, access to the law library, and legal forms. Plaintiff also
20
alleges that prison officials are retaliating against him and interfering with his prison trust
21
account and mail. Plaintiff requests the imposition of sanctions against prison officials for their
22
misconduct.
23
Plaintiff’s motion must be denied because the court lacks jurisdiction to impose
24
sanctions against officials at PBSP. The court lacks jurisdiction because the court does not
25
have such a case or controversy before it in this action.
26
Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985); City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461
27
U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for
28
Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982).
2
See Zepeda v. United States
1
Plaintiff’s Complaint in this action arises from events allegedly occurring in 2012 at Kern
2
Valley State Prison in Delano, California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there. Plaintiff now
3
requests a court order requiring present or future action by officials who are not defendants in
4
this action. Because an order imposing sanctions upon officials at PBSP would not remedy any
5
of the claims upon which this action proceeds, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue such order,
6
and Plaintiff=s motion must be denied.
7
IV.
CONCLUSION
8
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motions for service
9
of process and for the imposition of sanctions against prison officials, filed on March 30, 2015,
10
are DENIED.
11
12
13
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
April 2, 2015
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?