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)

Download PDF
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?