Shehee v. Nguyen et al

Filing 53

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Deny Plaintiff's 44 45 Motions for Copy Service signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 12/23/2016. Referred to Judge O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 1/13/2017.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01154-LJO-MJS (PC)

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR
COPY SERVICE

NGUYEN, et al.,

15

(ECF Nos. 44 & 45)
Defendants.

CLERK TO SERVE COPY OF THIS
ORDER ON FRESNO COUNTY JAIL

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case proceeds on Plaintiff’s third
amended complaint against Defendants Audrey Long, April Leavens, Long Moua, and
Kim Nguyen for denying Plaintiff a cane and access to educational services in violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Eighth Amendment of the United
States Constitution. (ECF No. 34.)
Plaintiff is currently detained in the Fresno County Jail (ECF No. 13) but
complains of acts that occurred at Coalinga State Hospital in Coalinga, California. On
November 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed two motions requesting an order from the Court
directing the County Sheriff’s designees to allow Plaintiff access to “copies” for the
purposes of filing motions, discovery, and other documents associated with these
1

1

proceedings. (ECF Nos. 44 & 45.) The Court construes these motions as requests for

2

injunctive relief.

3

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The pendency of this action does

4

not give the Court jurisdiction over state officials in general or over the relief requested in

5

Plaintiff's motion that is not the subject of the operative complaint. Summers v. Earth

6

Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964,

7

969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to

8

the cognizable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at

9

491-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. Generally, it is appropriate to grant in a preliminary

10

injunction “intermediate relief of the same character as that which may be granted

11

finally.” De Beers Consol. Mines v. U.S., 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). A court should not

12

issue an injunction when the relief sought is not of the same character as the relief

13

sought, and the injunction deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the

14

underlying action. Id. Moreover, A[a] federal court may issue an injunction if it has

15

personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may

16

not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.@ Zepeda v. United

17

States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Thus,

18

Plaintiff=s motion must be denied because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the

19

Fresno County Sheriff or his designees and the requested relief is not of the same

20

character as that requested in Plaintiff’s complaint. To the extent Plaintiff believes the

21

County Sheriff or his designees has wrongfully impeded Plaintiff’s access to the courts

22

by denying him access to copy-making facilities, that is a matter for a different lawsuit.

23

Nevertheless, the Court is cognizant that Plaintiff’s ability to make photocopies

24

may impact his ability to timely and effectively litigate this action. Accordingly, the Court

25

will request the assistance of the Sheriff or his designees in ensuring that Plaintiff is

26

afforded adequate opportunities to make photocopies, to extent doing so is consistent

27

with institutional order and security. See, e.g., Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 824-25

28

(1977) (requiring prison officials to provide inmates with those supplies and services that
2

1

are necessary for filing court documents). The Clerk’s Office will be directed to serve a

2

copy of this order on the Fresno County Jail.

3

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. The Clerk's Office shall serve a copy of this document on the Fresno County

5
6

Jail; and
2. The assistance of the County Sheriff or his designee is requested in facilitating

7

Plaintiff’s access to copy-making facilities; and

8

Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

9

3. Plaintiff=s motions for an order directing the Fresno County Sheriff to provide

10

Plaintiff with access to copy-making facilities (ECF Nos. 44 & 45) be DENIED

11

for lack of jurisdiction.

12

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States

13

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. §

14

636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and

15

Recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the Court. The document

16

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”

17

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result

18

in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir.

19

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 23, 2016

/s/

23

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

Michael J. Seng

3