Hill v. Katavich et al
Filing
12
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss the Action for Plaintiff's Failure to Obey Court Order and to Deny Plaintiff's Requests for Injunctive Relief Via Transfer to Another Facility, referred to Judge O'Neill, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/20/2015. Objections to F&R Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TONY HILL,
12
13
14
15
Case No. 1:15-cv-00631-LJO-JLT (PC)
Plaintiff,
v.
KATAVICH, et al.,
Defendants.
(Docs. 3, 8-11)
16
30-DAY DEADLINE
17
18
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS THE ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF'S
FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER and TO
DENY PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF VIA TRANSFER TO
ANOTHER FACILITY
Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on April 21, 2015. On that same date, he filed
19
an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2.) On April 29, 2015, a Findings and
20
Recommendation issued to deny Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3.)
21
Plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. 4.) On June 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed for injunctive relief, asking
22
to be transferred to another facility. (Doc. 9.) On July 6, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff's
23
application to proceed in forma pauperis and he was ordered to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full
24
within thirty days. (Docs. 3, 10.) On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff renewed his request for injunctive
25
relief. (Doc. 11.) More than thirty days have passed from the order directing Plaintiff to pay the
26
filing fee in full and he has failed to do so.
27
28
A civil action may not proceed absent the submission of either the filing fee or a
completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. Though Plaintiff
1
1
submitted a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, it was denied since Plaintiff had
2
more than three strikes against him and did not meet the imminent danger of serious physical
3
exception per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) at the time this action was filed. (See Docs. 3, 10.) Based on
4
Plaintiff’s ineligibility to proceed in forma pauperis and his failure to comply with the Court’s
5
order to pay the filing fee in full, dismissal of this action is appropriate. In re
6
Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006);
7
Local Rule 110.
8
Further, Plaintiff's requests for transfer to another facility should be denied. Federal
9
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary injunctive
10
relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it an
11
actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge
12
Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471
13
(1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear
14
the matter in question. Id. In light of Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee, the Court has not
15
screened Plaintiff=s Complaint and does not know whether he states cognizable claims upon
16
which to have an actual case or controversy before the Court.
17
On the other hand, the face of the motion does not appear to be within this Court’s
18
authority. Plaintiff does not seek the temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction
19
against any of the Defendants whom he has named in this action. Notably, the pendency of this
20
action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general. Summers v. Earth
21
Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th
22
Cir. 2010). The Court=s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the cognizable
23
legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 129 S.Ct. at 1148-49; Mayfield, 599
24
F.3d at 969. AA federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties
25
and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of
26
persons not before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727
27
(9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Thus, Plaintiff=s motion would be denied for lack of
28
jurisdiction over CSP officials and/or CDCR officials whom Plaintiff desires this Court compel
2
1
2
transfer him to another facility. Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1.
3
4
$400.00 filing fee; and
2.
5
6
this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to pay the
that Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief (Docs. 9, 11) be DENIED for lack of
jurisdiction.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
7
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 30
8
days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written
9
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
10
Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
11
specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,
12
839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
13
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
August 20, 2015
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?