Vaca v. Bowen et al

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Court Order 13 & 14 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 10/15/2014. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MARCOS VACA, 11 Plaintiff, 12 Case No. 1:14-cv-01327 DLB PC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COURT ORDER v. 13 (Documents 13 and 14) BOWEN, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff Marcos Vaca (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 17 18 forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s August 19, 2014, 19 complaint is awaiting screening.1 On September 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a letter in which he complains of denial of access to 20 21 the law library and an inability to mail his legal mail. He filed a supplemental motion on September 22 29, 2014. The Court construes the motions as motions for injunctive relief. 23 A. LEGAL STANDARD “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. 24 25 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation 26 omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on 27 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 28 1 Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on September 4, 2014. 1 1 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 2 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is 3 entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). In cases brought by prisoners 4 involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend 5 no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the 6 least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). 7 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary 8 injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it 9 an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge 10 Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). 11 If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter 12 in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of 13 the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly 14 drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least 15 intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 16 B. 17 DISCUSSION In his motion, Plaintiff appears to complain of actions taken by a correctional officer at 18 Corcoran State Prison (“CSP”). The Court does not, however, have jurisdiction to provide the relief 19 he requests. This action, which forms the basis of the requirements for injunctive relief, concerns 20 allegations of denial of access to the courts while Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Golden State 21 Modified Community Correctional Facility (“MCCF”) in McFarland, California. 22 Plaintiff therefore requests relief that is unrelated to the issues and parties in this action. The 23 Court lacks personal jurisdiction over individuals who are not parties to this action and it is unable to 24 order anyone at CSP to take any action. Similarly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to remedy issues at 25 CSP that are unrelated to those in this action. 26 Because the issues Plaintiff seeks to remedy bear no relation, jurisdictionally, to the past 27 events at MCCF, the case or controversy requirement cannot be met and injunctive relief must be 28 denied. 2 1 2 ORDER Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motions are DENIED. 3 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Dennis October 15, 2014 L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 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?