Quiroga v. Graves et al

Filing 42

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending That Plaintiff's 41 Motion for Preliminary Injunction be Denied, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/30/18. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MONICO J. QUIROGA III,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
SERGEANT GRAVES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

1:16-cv-00234-DAD-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION BE DENIED
(ECF No. 41.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS

17
18

I.

BACKGROUND
Monico J. Quiroga III (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19
20

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

21

Complaint commencing this action on February 19, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s Third

22

Amended Complaint, filed on March 30, 2018, awaits the court’s screening under 28 U.S.C. §

23

1915A. (ECF No. 41.)

24
25

Plaintiff filed the

On July 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 41.)
II.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

26

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed

27

on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,

28

that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id.
1

1

at 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the

2

plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

3

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for

4

preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary

5

matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S.

6

95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for

7

Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the

8

Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter

9

in question. Id.

10

Plaintiff alleges nonstop harassment by the Kern County Sheriffs Gang & Narcotics

11

Task Force and claims that his “sphere of intellect” has been invaded using the military tactic

12

of sense deprivation. (ECF No. 41.) To the extent that Plaintiff seeks a court order enjoining

13

members of the Kern County Sheriffs Gang & Narcotics Task Force from acting against him,

14

the court lacks jurisdiction to issue such an order. At the time of the events at issue in this case

15

Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the Kern County Sheriff’s Detention Facility (Detention

16

Facility) in Bakersfield, California. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at High Desert State

17

Prison in Susanville, California, in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and

18

Rehabilitation.

19

Detention Facility should be denied as moot as Plaintiff is no longer in custody there.1 Where a

20

prisoner is challenging conditions of confinement and is seeking injunctive relief, transfer to

21

another prison renders the request for injunctive relief moot absent some evidence of an

22

expectation of being transferred back. See Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975);

23

Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam); see also Andrews v.

24

Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 n.5 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, there is no evidence that Plaintiff

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief against officials at the

25
26
27
28

1

On June 10, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of his address from the Detention Facility in
Bakersfield, California, to Wasco State Prison in Wasco, California. (ECF No. 15.) On October 21, 2016,
Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address to the High Desert State Prison in Susanville, California, where
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated. (ECF No. 17.)
2

1

expects to be transferred back to the Detention Facility in Bakersfield. Therefore, Plaintiff’s

2

motion should be denied as moot.

3

III.

4
5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion

for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on July 27, 2018, be DENIED as moot.

6

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

7

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

8

(14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file

9

written objections with the court.

Such a document should be captioned "Objections to

10

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

11

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

12

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394

13

(9th Cir. 1991)).

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 30, 2018

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3