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)

Download PDF
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 .

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?