Quiroga v. Graves et al

Filing 61

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for preliminary injunctive relief be denied 60 . Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd. Objections to F&R's due within 14-Days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/22/2019. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
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 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED (ECF No. 60.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 17 18 19 20 21 22 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Monico J. Quiroga III (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 23 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 24 commencing this action on February 19, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds with 25 Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint filed on September 6, 2018, against defendant Corporal 26 Oscar Fuentes for violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. (ECF No. 45.) 27 28 Plaintiff filed the Complaint On April 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for protective order, which the court construes as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. (ECF No. 60.) 1 1 II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 2 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed 3 on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that 4 the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 5 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the 6 plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). 7 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 8 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, 9 it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 10 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of 11 Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the Court does not 12 have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. 13 III. BACKGROUND 14 Plaintiff alleges in the Fourth Amended Complaint that in 2016, when he was a pretrial 15 detainee at the Kern County Sheriff’s Detention Facility in Bakersfield, California, he was 16 escorted by defendant Fuentes after an altercation between inmates and detained in an unsanitary 17 cell. On December 18, 2018, the court found service of the complaint appropriate on defendant 18 Fuentes. (ECF No. 49.) On April 5, 2019, defendant Fuentes filed an answer. (ECF No. 55.) 19 On July 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin Kern 20 County Sheriff’s deputies from acting against him. (ECF No. 41.) The court denied that motion. 21 (ECF No. 46.) 22 IV. DISCUSSION 23 Plaintiff now requests a “protective order or keep away” because of an upcoming hearing 24 “for restitution modification and small claims and request to modify child support” that will cause 25 him to be “in imminent danger from being assaulted again by defendants or harassed while in 26 their custody.” (ECF No. 60 at 1.) Plaintiff’s current motion is similar to his prior one, which 27 this court denied. (See ECF Nos. 42, 46.) 28 2 1 Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at High Desert State Prison in Susanville, California, in 2 the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. To the extent that 3 Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against officers at High Desert State Prison, Plaintiff’s motion 4 should be denied because the court lacks jurisdiction over those officers. An order enjoining 5 those officers would enjoin persons who are not defendants in this action and who are not before 6 the court. The court “may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” 7 Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). 8 To the extent that Plaintiff seek injunctive relief against defendant Fuentes or any other 9 officer at the Kern County Sheriff’s Detention Facility, Plaintiff’s motion should be denied as 10 moot because Plaintiff is no longer in custody there.1 Where the prisoner is challenging 11 conditions of confinement and is seeking injunctive relief, transfer to another prison renders the 12 request for injunctive relief moot absent some evidence of an expectation of being transferred 13 back. See Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 14 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam); see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 n.5 (9th 15 Cir. 2007). Here, there is no evidence that Plaintiff expects to be transferred back to the Detention 16 Facility in Bakersfield. 17 V. 18 19 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on April 19, 2019, be DENIED. 20 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 21 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 22 (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 23 written objections with the court. 24 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 25 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to 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.) 3 1 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 2 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 22, 2019 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?