Alvarez v. Hashemi

Filing 13

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 10 Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief be DENIED for Lack of Jurisdiction re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 4/29/2016. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

RAUL ALVAREZ,

10
11

Plaintiff,
v.

12

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT PLAINTIFF=S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE
DENIED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

DR. NASTRAN HASHEMI,

13

Case No. 1:16-cv-00203-AWI-SKO (PC)

Defendant.

14

(Doc. 10)
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

15
Plaintiff, Raul Alvarez, is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
16
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding on a claim against Defendant
17
Dr. Nastran Hashemi for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of
18
the Eighth Amendment. On March 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed a request for court order indicating that
19
he is going to be transferred, and requested an order prohibiting prison officials from sending him
20

anywhere other than “Chino or Corcoran” and prohibiting prison officers from taking and/or

21
destroying his legal property in retaliation for his litigation activities when he is transferred.
22
(Doc. 10.) Plaintiff’s request is construed as a motion for injunctive relief.
23
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for
24
preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it
25
have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103
26
S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church
27
and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). Requests for prospective relief are further limited by
28
1

1

18 U.S.C. ' 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find

2

the Arelief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation

3

of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the

4

Federal right.@

5

While this Court does have jurisdiction over the claims and issues raised in Plaintiff’s

6

complaint, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in

7

general or over Plaintiff’s transfer or the handling of Plaintiff’s property (legal or otherwise)

8

during his transfer. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009); Mayfield v.

9

United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court=s jurisdiction is limited to the parties

10

in this action and to the cognizable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers,

11

555 U.S. at 492-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

12

AA federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the

13

parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of

14

persons not before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727

15

(9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Plaintiff does not seek a temporary restraining order and/or

16

preliminary injunction against Dr. Hashemi. Thus, Plaintiff=s motion must be denied for lack of

17

jurisdiction over the "prison officials” and/or “officers” whom Plaintiff seeks to compel to

18

transfer him to “Chino or Corcoran” only, and over the handling and preservation of Plaintiff’s

19

legal property in any such transfer.

20

Plaintiff is not precluded from attempting to state cognizable claims in a new action if his

21

civil rights are violated beyond his pleadings in this action. The issue is not that Plaintiff=s

22

allegations are not serious, or that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief if sought in the proper forum.

23

The seriousness of Plaintiff=s accusations concerning where he would like to be transferred and

24

the possible destruction/loss of his legal property during transfer, however, cannot and do not

25

overcome what is a jurisdictional bar. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 103-04 (A[The] triad of injury in

26

fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III=s case-or-controversy

27

requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its

28

existence.@) This action is simply not the proper vehicle for addressing the relief Plaintiff seeks.
2

1

1,2

2
3

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff=s motion for injunctive
relief, filed March 4, 2016, be denied for lack of jurisdiction.

4

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

5

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

6

(30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written

7

objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned “Objections to

8

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the

9

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,

10

839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 29, 2016

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff=s motion also fails to make the requisite showing, supported by admissible evidence, to obtain a
preliminary injunction. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20-4, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376
(2008). However, it is unnecessary to reach the merits of Plaintiff=s motions in light of the fact that the jurisdictional
issue is fatal to his requests for relief. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493, 129 S.Ct. at 1149; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.
2
Plaintiff is not prohibited from raising his concerns regarding the facility to which he is transferred with prison
officials and/or the Litigation Coordinator at his current facility. However, the location to where he is transferred and
the preservation of his property upon such transfer is left to the sound discretion of prison officials.

3