Timberland v. Mascarenas et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying 8 Motion for preliminary injunctive relief signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/8/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RONALD TIMBERLAND,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:16-cv-00922-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(ECF No. 8.)

vs.
G. MASCARENAS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

Ronald Timberland (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20

pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the

21

Complaint commencing this action on June 27, 2016, against correctional officers at Corcoran

22

State Prison for violation of his right to due process concerning an ICC hearing held at CSP on

23

May 5, 2015. (ECF No. 1.)

24

On July 18, 2016, February 11, 2013, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge

25

jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made an

26

appearance. (ECF No. 5.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the

27

Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case

28

until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).
1

1

On October 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion titled “Motion for Assistance from the

2

Court.” (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff requests a court order providing him with “in cell study of

3

research material/books” at California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California, where

4

he is now incarcerated. (Id.) The court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for preliminary

5

injunctive relief.

6

II.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

7

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of

8

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

9

the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v.

10

Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who

11

“demonstrates either (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable

12

harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.”

13

Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either

14

approach the plaintiff “must demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. Also,

15

an injunction should not issue if the plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the merits.” Id.

16

At a bare minimum, the plaintiff “must demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or

17

questions serious enough to require litigation.” Id.

18

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

19

must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95,

20

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

21

of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of

22

Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or

23

controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Thus, “[a] federal

24

court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject

25

matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not

26

before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir.

27

1985).

28

///
2

1

III.

DISCUSSION

2

The relief Plaintiff seeks would not address Plaintiff’s due process claims which are the

3

basis of this action. Therefore, the relief requested by Plaintiff is not available in this case

4

because the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant such relief in this case. Moreover, the court has no

5

jurisdiction over prison officials at CCI in this action.

6

preliminary injunctive relief must be denied.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for

7

The court also recognizes that prison administrators "should be accorded wide-ranging

8

deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are

9

needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security." Whitley

10

v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-322 (1986) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1970).

11

Accordingly, the court shall defer to the prison's policies and practices in granting Plaintiff

12

access to research materials.

13

IV.

14
15

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for

preliminary injunctive relief is DENIED.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 8, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3