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
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?