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