Cowart v. Rahman et al

Filing 54

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief, filed on January 4, 2018, be DENIED re 53 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER filed by Gardell Cowart ; referred to Judge Ishii, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 01/08/2018. Objections to F&R due by 2/2/2018 (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

GARDELL COWART,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

RAHMAN, et al.,

13

No. 1:16-cv-00004-AWI-SKO (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DENY PLAINTIFF=S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Doc. 53)

Defendants.

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

14
15
16

Plaintiff, Gardell Cowart, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

17

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On January 4, 2018, Plaintiff filed a request

18

for injunctive relief via an order directing prison staff at the California Institution for Men

19

(“CIM”) to cease all violations of his constitutional rights and for his removal from “ASU

20

placement.” (Doc. 53.)

21

As stated in the findings and recommendations on Plaintiff’s prior numerous motions for

22

injunctive relief, requests for prospective relief are limited by 18 U.S.C. ' 3626 (a)(1)(A) of the

23

Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly

24

drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right, and is the

25

least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right.” As a threshold

26

matter, Plaintiff must establish that he has standing in this action to seek the preliminary

27

injunctive relief he desires. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493-94, 129 S.Ct.

28

1142, 1149 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff “must
1

1

show that he is under threat of suffering an ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and particularized; the

2

threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to

3

challenged conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will

4

prevent or redress the injury.” Summers, 555 U.S. at 493 (citation and quotation marks omitted);

5

Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

6

The medical care claims on which Plaintiff proceeds in this action arise from events which

7

occurred at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“SATF”) in Corcoran, California. However,

8

Plaintiff is currently housed at CIM. Plaintiff thus lacks standing in this action to seek relief

9

directed at remedying his current conditions of confinement at CIM, and Plaintiff does not seek

10

relief in this motion against any of the defendants against whom he is proceeding in this action.

11

As such, Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction must be denied.

12

The federal venue statute also requires that a civil action, other than one based on

13

diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all

14

defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which

15

a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part

16

of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an

17

action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any

18

defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. '

19

1391(b). CIM is located within the judicial district of the United States District Court for the

20

Central District of California. Therefore, this Court is not the proper venue for claims based on

21

incidents which occurred at CIM.1

22
23

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive
relief, filed on January 4, 2018, be DENIED.

24

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

25

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

26

twenty-one (21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff

27

1

28

No determination is made whether Plaintiff’s allegations state cognizable claims and nothing in this order prohibits
him from raising the events he alleges are occurring at CIM in another action if he feels his constitutional rights have
been violated.

2

1

may file written objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be

2

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file

3

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v.

4

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th

5

Cir. 1991)).

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 8, 2018

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

.