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)

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