Myers v. Pulido et al

Filing 57

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Deny Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/12/17. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DALLAS JOSHUA JAMES MYERS, Plaintiff, v. 10 11 L. PULIDO, Defendant. 12 13 14 Case No.: 1:16-cv-00638-AWI-SAB (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (ECF No. 52) FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 15 I. 16 INTRODUCTION 17 18 Plaintiff Dallas J. Myers is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On June 14, 2017, the parties stipulated to a voluntary dismissal of this action, and thus this 20 matter was terminated and dismissed with prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of 21 San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). 22 On June 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order requiring prison officials at Mule 23 Creek State Prison to give him back his legal property immediately. Plaintiff states that when he was 24 returned to the institution from Court and was told it could take up to 30 days for him to receive all of 25 his property. Plaintiff seeks an order directing that he receive all of his property immediately. The 26 Court construes Plaintiff’s request as a motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief. 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 2 II. 3 LEGAL STANDARDS 4 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. 5 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S. Ct. 365, 376, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) 6 (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to 7 succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, 8 that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 9 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is 10 entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). 11 As a threshold matter, Plaintiff must establish that he has standing to seek preliminary 12 injunctive relief. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493, 129 S. Ct. 1142, 1149, 173 13 L.Ed.2d 1 (2009) (citation omitted); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). 14 Plaintiff “must show that he is under threat of suffering an ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and 15 particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly 16 traceable to challenged conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial 17 decision will prevent or redress the injury.” Summers, 555 U.S. at 493 (citation omitted); Mayfield, 18 599 F.3d at 969. 19 III. 20 DISCUSSION 21 This matter concerned Plaintiff’s claims regarding allegations of past uses of excessive force 22 and unconstitutional conditions of confinement at California State Prison, Corcoran, against 23 Correctional Officers J. Gonzales and H. Flores. Those claims have now been voluntarily dismissed with 24 prejudice by stipulation, and this matter is closed. 25 The pendency of this action does not give Plaintiff standing to seek any court orders directed at 26 remedying his current conditions of confinement at Mule Creek State Prison, against prison officials 27 who are not a party to this action. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493 (citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 28 969. The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the adjudication of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims 2 1 arising from prior events at California State Prison, Corcoran. Nor can this Court issue an order 2 against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine 3 Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). 4 Plaintiff has also failed to allege or demonstrate “actual injury” by the alleged misconduct by 5 prison officials. Plaintiff asserts that his legal property is required because he has ongoing litigation. It 6 is unclear what this litigation entails, whether Plaintiff has any pending deadlines, or whether he can 7 receive any extension on those deadlines based on the need for some additional time to receive his 8 legal property due to his transfer. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that in the absence of 9 preliminary injunctive relief he is likely to suffer actual injury in prosecuting his case. “Speculative 10 injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant granting a preliminary injunction.” 11 Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Goldies 12 Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court, 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984)). Plaintiff has provided no basis 13 for this court to interfere with the jail’s administration of the delivery of his property. 14 IV. 15 RECOMMENDATION 16 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion seeking an 17 order to Mule Creek State Prison to give him back his property immediately, filed June 30, 2017 (ECF 18 No. 52), be DENIED. 19 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 20 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days 21 after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written objections 22 with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 23 Recommendation.” 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 3 1 The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 2 waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 3 v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: 7 July 12, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?