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
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?