Shehee v. Nguyen et al

Filing 64

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Deny Plaintiff's 62 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/5/2017. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due by 5/22/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

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 MOTION FOR
MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF

NGUYEN, et al.,

15

(ECF No. 62)
Defendants.

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
March 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice with the Court complaining that various officials
had confiscated Plaintiff’s legal documents in retaliation for the filing of his lawsuit. (ECF
No. 62.) Plaintiff does not specify the institution these officials are affiliated wi None of
1

1

the officials listed are named Defendants in this lawsuit. While Plaintiff does not state

2

exactly what relief he seeks from the Court, the Court construes this notice as a motion

3

for injunctive relief, to wit, the return of his legal documents.

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

individuals responsible for confiscating his property and the requested relief is not of the

21

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

22

the listed officials have wrongfully deprived Plaintiff of his property, that is a matter for a

23

different lawsuit.

24

Plaintiff has previously been advised that the pendency of his action does not give

25

the Court jurisdiction over any and all potential claims Plaintiff may have against state

26

officials. This order serves as Plaintiff’s final reminder that he may not seek relief outside

27

of the scope of that requested in his lawsuit.

28

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
2

1

1. Plaintiff=s motion for miscellaneous relief (ECF No. 62) be DENIED.

2

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 5, 2017

/s/

13

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Michael J. Seng

3