Dulaney v. Fresno Police Department et al

Filing 17

ORDER DENYING 9 Request for Injunctive Relief signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/21/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 MARIO DULANEY, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. JERRY DYER, FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT, FRESNO POLICE OFFICER RICHARD BADILLA, FRESNO POLICE OFFICER MATHEW SILVER Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:14-cv-1051-LJO-BAM ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (ECF No. 9) Plaintiff Mario Dulaney (“Plaintiff”) appears to be a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se 16 and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 24, 17 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Court to permit non-collect calls to help with all the 18 legalities of the case. (Doc. 9.) The Court will construe Plaintiff’s motion as request for a 19 temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction to compel prison officials to allow telephone 20 calls. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 4.) 21 The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of 22 equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure 23 the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. 24 Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981). “A plaintiff seeking a 25 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 26 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 27 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense 28 Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). “[A] preliminary 1 1 injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the 2 movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 3 968, 972, 117 S.Ct. 1865, 138 L.Ed.2d 162 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis 4 in original). 5 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court 6 must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 7 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for 8 Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982). 9 If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the 10 matter in question. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102. Thus, “[a] federal court may issue an injunction 11 [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the 12 claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. 13 United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir.1985). 14 The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in 15 general. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 491–93, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 173 L.Ed.2d 1 16 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir.2010). The Court's jurisdiction is 17 limited to the parties in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is 18 proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491–93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 19 Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction ordering prison 20 officials to permit non-collect telephone calls. However, Plaintiff has not met the requirements 21 for a preliminary injunction. Further, this Court does not have jurisdiction over prison officials. 22 Finally, the Court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend and no claims are 23 currently pending. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for non-collect calls, construed as a motion a 24 motion for temporary restraining order/ preliminary injunction, is DENIED. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: /s/ Barbara January 21, 2015 27 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 2

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?