Birdsall v. James, et al.
Filing
34
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's Motion to Dispense with the requirement of security and Motion for a preliminary injunction 22 , be DENIED re 22 MOTION to Dispense With the Requirement of Security filed by William Birdsall ; referred to Judge Drozd,signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/5/17. Objections to F&R due by 12/26/2017 (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
WILLIAM BIRDSALL,
12
Plaintiff,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING MOTION TO DISPENSE
WITH REQUIREMENT OF SECURITY AND
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Defendant.
13
14
Case No. 1:14-cv-01738-DAD-BAM (PC)
(ECF No. 22)
v.
D. JAMES,
15
16
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
17
18
Plaintiff William Birdsall (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
19
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently proceeds
20
on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendant James for violation of Plaintiff’s due
21
process rights. (ECF No. 18.)
22
I.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
23
On September 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to dispense with the requirement of
24
security and a motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 22.) Defendant did not file an
25
opposition, and the deadline to file a response has expired. The Court construes the filing as a
26
motion for preliminary injunction, and the motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).
27
///
28
///
1
1
Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction to remove the January 5, 2014 Rules Violation
2
Report from his C-file, restore his credits, and have his points corrected.1 Plaintiff states he was
3
not given a proper hearing and his due process rights were violated by the defendant, resulting in
4
Plaintiff’s placement in restricted housing, forfeit of 365 days of good time, and more disciplinary
5
points. Plaintiff states that with the grant of this preliminary injunction during the pendency of
6
this action, he will no longer have to live in a more restricted prison.
7
Plaintiff argues that he is suffering irreparable injury because he is being forced to live in
8
a more restrictive prison and he has lost credits and other privileges afforded for being write up
9
free. Plaintiff further states that the Defendant will not be harmed by the removal of the RVR
10
from his C-file, the public interest is best served when all persons, including prisoners, enjoy the
11
constitutional rights afforded to them, and he is likely to succeed because the Defendant clearly
12
denied Plaintiff of his rights. In his affidavit in support of the motion, Plaintiff states that he was
13
found wrongfully guilty of the RVR, when the evidence produced should have freed Plaintiff of
14
the charges.
15
With his motion for preliminary injunction, Plaintiff also filed a motion to dispense with
16
the requirement of security in this matter. Plaintiff argues that he has been granted leave to
17
proceed in forma pauperis, Defendant will not be required to expend money to comply with the
18
preliminary injunction requested, and the ends of justice will be served if Plaintiff is not required
19
to post security.
20
II.
Legal Standard
21
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter
22
v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a
23
preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to
24
suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his
25
1
26
27
28
The Court notes, without deciding, that the relief sought in the instant motion may be barred by
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), also known as the favorable termination rule. But see
Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 929 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (“If the invalidity of the
disciplinary proceedings, and therefore the restoration of good-time credits, would not necessarily
affect the length of time to be served, then the claim falls outside the scope of habeas and may be
brought in § 1983.”)
2
1
favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction
2
may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation
3
omitted).
4
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for
5
preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it
6
have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983);
7
Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S.
8
464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no
9
power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18
10
U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find
11
the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation
12
of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the
13
Federal right.”
14
Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison
15
officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v.
16
United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties
17
in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555
18
U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.
19
III.
Discussion
20
“A court has no power to adjudicate a personal claim or obligation unless it has
21
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.,
22
395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969); SEC v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1138–39 (9th Cir. 2007). This action
23
proceeds against Defendant James for an alleged violation of Plaintiff’s due process rights. In his
24
motion, Plaintiff seeks an injunction directing “prison officials” to remove a Rules Violation
25
Report from his C-File. The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over
26
prison officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield
27
v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the
28
parties in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding.
3
1
2
Summers, 555 U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks transfer to a different facility, Plaintiff is cautioned that “an
3
inmate has no justifiable expectation that he will be incarcerated in any particular prison within a
4
State, [and] he has no justifiable expectation that he will be incarcerated in any particular State.”
5
Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983).
6
IV.
Conclusion and Recommendation
7
Having considered Plaintiff’s moving papers and supporting declaration and exhibits, IT
8
IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion to dispense with the requirement of
9
security and motion for a preliminary injunction, (ECF No. 22), be DENIED.
10
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
11
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within
12
fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may
13
file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to
14
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file
15
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the
16
magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir.
17
2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
18
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
December 5, 2017
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?