Johnson v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 53

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief 36 , 37 signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 8/17/2017. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 9/21/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LACEDRIC W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff 12 v. 13 14 ISAAC GONZALEZ, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-01252-LJO-EPG (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (ECF Nos. 36, 37) Defendants. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff LaCedric W. Johnson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff commenced this action by the filing of a Complaint on July 18, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) This action is currently proceeding on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint against Defendants Isaac Gonzalez and A. Martinez, corrections officers at Pleasant Valley State Prison. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Gonzalez and Martinez discarded and converted Plaintiff’s legal mail and legal files for five actives cases thereby depriving him of access to the court. (ECF No. 13.) On May 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order to show cause for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and a motion for preliminary injunction. (ECF Nos. 36, 37.) Plaintiff states that he will be transferred from Pleasant Valley State Prison to a different prison within 30 days of the filing of these motions. Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining Defendants, 28 1 1 R & R Sgt. Carr, Warden Scott Frauenheim, Litigation Coordinator Geringer, their successors in 2 office, agents and employees, and all other persons acting in concert and in participation with 3 them from confiscating, losing, and destroying his personal property, including legal files for this 4 action, during his transfer to a different prison. Defendants did not file opposition to Plaintiff’s 5 motions. 6 II. 7 8 9 10 DISCUSSION The purpose of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is to preserve the relative positions of the parties until a hearing or trial on the merits can be held. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). A plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief “must establish 11 that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence 12 13 14 15 of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20. Requests for prospective relief, such as a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, are also limited by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court 16 find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the 17 violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of 18 the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Furthermore, in considering a request for 19 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement it have before it an actual 20 case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983). The Court is also 21 bound by the requirements of personal jurisdiction. Zepeda v. U.S.I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 9th 22 Cir. 1983). The Court may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before it. Id. 23 Here, R & R Sgt. Carr, Warden Scott Frauenheim, Litigation Coordinator Geringer, their 24 successors in office, agents and employees are not parties to this action. The order Plaintiff seeks 25 26 27 28 would thus require actions by persons who are not before the Court. Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant preliminary injunctive relief against these parties. With respect to Defendants, Plaintiff’s request is now also beyond the reach of the Court. On July 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address to San Quentin State Prison. It 2 1 appears Plaintiff’s transfer is complete. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request is moot. 2 Nevertheless, if Plaintiff’s property was confiscated, lost, or destroyed during the process 3 of his transfer, Plaintiff may bring an appropriate motion for relief. To the extent it has interfered 4 with his ability to go forward with this case, Plaintiff should bring it to this Court’s attention. 5 III. 6 7 8 9 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for an order to show cause for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and motion for preliminary injunction be DENIED as moot. This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 10 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within thirty 11 12 13 14 (30) days after being served with a copy, Plaintiff may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections 15 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 16 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 17, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?