Pulido v. Lunes et al
Filing
9
ORDER DENYING 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/1/2014. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOSE J. PULIDO,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
vs.
1:14-cv-01174-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Doc. 8.)
M. LUNES, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
I.
BACKGROUND
19
Jose J. Pulido (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
20
with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint
21
commencing this action on July 28, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On August 15, 2014, Plaintiff consented
22
to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no
23
other parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 7.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of
24
the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all
25
proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local
26
Rule Appendix A(k)(3).
27
28
On November 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. (Doc.
8.)
1
1
II.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
2
AA preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.@
3
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation
4
omitted). AA plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to
5
succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
6
relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public
7
interest.@ Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear
8
showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
9
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for
10
preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary
11
matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S.
12
95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for
13
Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the
14
Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter
15
in question.
16
3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the
17
Arelief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of
18
the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the
19
Federal right.@
Id.
Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. '
20
Plaintiff requests a court order barring prison officials at the Substance Abuse
21
Treatment Facility (SATF) in Corcoran, California, from retaliating against him by transferring
22
him to another institution, until after this case is resolved.
23
Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief against prison officials at SATF must be denied
24
because such relief would not remedy any of the claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint. The events at
25
issue in Plaintiff’s Complaint allegedly occurred in 2010, when prison officials failed to protect
26
Plaintiff from an identified threat to his safety. Because a court order barring future conduct by
27
prison officials would not remedy any of the claims based on past conduct upon which this
28
///
2
1
action proceeds, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue such an order, and Plaintiff=s motion must
2
be denied.
3
III.
4
5
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion for
preliminary injunctive relief, filed on November 20, 2014, is DENIED.
6
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
December 1, 2014
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?