Keenan v. Lopez
Filing
13
ORDER denying request for court order to stop retaliation re 12 signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/23/2015. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KEENAN SIGUR,
12
13
14
15
1:14-cv-01852-GSA-PC
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
COURT TO STOP RETALIATION
(Doc. 12.)
vs.
J. LOPEZ,
Defendant.
16
17
18
Keenan Sigur (“Plaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights
19
action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action
20
on November 3, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On December 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed the First Amended
21
Complaint, which awaits the court’s requisite screening. (Doc. 8.)
22
On December 22, 2014, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this
23
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 6.)
24
Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of
25
California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as
26
reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).
27
On February 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for court assistance in resolving ongoing
28
acts of retaliation against him. (Doc. 12.) Plaintiff asserts that he has been detained in the
1
1
Reception Center for seven months and is not allowed to talk to family and friends, which
2
affects his mental health.
3
The court lacks jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff’s request. Because the defendant has
4
appeared in this action, the court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant. “A federal court may
5
issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter
6
jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the
7
court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985).
8
Moreover, the court lacks jurisdiction because the relief Plaintiff seeks would not address
9
Plaintiff’s excessive force claim which is the basis of this action. Further, the court recognizes
10
that prison administrators "should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and
11
execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order
12
and discipline and to maintain institutional security." Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-
13
322 (1986) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1970). Accordingly, the court shall
14
defer to the prison's policies and practices in detaining inmates in the Reception Center and
15
denying visitation rights. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for assistance shall be denied.
16
17
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's
request for court assistance is DENIED.
18
19
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
February 23, 2015
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?