Furnace v. Cope et al

Filing 20

ORDER REGARDING 19 Ex Parte Communication with Court signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 6/22/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EDWARD FURNACE,

12

Plaintiff,

13

ORDER REGARDING EX PARTE
COMMUNICATION WITH COURT

v.

14

Case No. 1:16-cv-00420-LJO-BAM (PC)

B. COPE, et al.,

(ECF No. 19)

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Edward Furnace (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on

19

March 28, 2016, (ECF No. 1), and filed a first amended complaint on May 5, 2016. (ECF Nos. 1,

20

10.) On June 19, 2017, the Court issued an order dismissing Plaintiff’s first amended complaint

21

for failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18, and 20, and granted leave to

22

amend within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 18.)

23

I.

Notice of Ex Parte Communication

24

Also on June 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant notice of ex parte communication with

25

the Court. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff contends that on May 30, 2017, prison officials at Pelican Bay

26

State Prison targeted Plaintiff’s quarters for a retaliatory cell search, confiscating all of his legal

27

books and mixing up all of his legal documents pertaining to this case and others. Plaintiff

28

alleges that these actions were to disguise the theft of materials in support of this action,
1

1

specifically four declarations collected from fellow inmates and a motion Plaintiff drafted

2

regarding the appointment of an expert witness. Plaintiff states that he would like to file a motion

3

for a preliminary injunction, but requires a copy of the Local Rules for the Eastern District

4

pertaining to motions. Plaintiff further alleges that the delay in the screening of his first amended

5

complaint has prejudiced him and prevented him from filing an additional suit against Pelican

6

Bay State Prison officials. (Id.)

7

With respect to Plaintiff’s request for a copy of the Local Rules, Plaintiff is advised that

8

the Court generally does not send litigants free copies of rules or case law, and any deviation

9

from that standard practice represents an exception which must be justified. Copies of the

10

Court’s Local Rules should be available to Plaintiff from the law library at his institution.

11
12

As Plaintiff’s first amended complaint has been screened, (ECF No. 18), Plaintiff’s
request for the status of screening is moot.
Legal Standards – Preliminary Injunction

13

II.

14

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to file a motion for a preliminary injunction, the legal

15
16

standards are as follows:
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of

17

equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure

18

the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch,

19

451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is

20

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

21

preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the

22

public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). “[A] preliminary

23

injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the

24

movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S.

25

968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

26

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court

27

must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102

28

(1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454
2

1

U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no

2

power to hear the matter in question. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102. Thus, “[a] federal court may issue

3

an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction

4

over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.”

5

Zepeda v. U.S. Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985).

6

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

7

general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States,

8

599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action

9

and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at

10

491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

11

III.

Conclusion and Order

12

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1. Plaintiff’s request for a copy of the Local Rules pertaining to motions is DENIED; and

14

2. Plaintiff’s request for status of screening is DENIED as moot.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

June 22, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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