Thomas v. Davey et al

Filing 34

ORDER Denying Request for Priority Screening of Second Amended Complaint as Moot; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Plaintiff's 21 30 Motions for Emergency Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 06/22/2017. Referred to Judge Ishii. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARD THOMAS, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. DAVE DAVEY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:16-cv-00925-AWI-BAM (PC) ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR PRIORITY SCREENING OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AS MOOT (ECF No. 30) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR EMERGENCY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND RESTRAINING ORDER (ECF Nos. 21, 30) FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 21 Plaintiff Edward Thomas (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 22 pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 27, 2016. Currently before 23 the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunction and restraining order, filed on March 1, 24 2017, and May 8, 2017. (ECF Nos. 21, 30.) Plaintiff also has requested priority screening of his 25 second amended complaint. (ECF No. 30.) 26 I. Background 27 On October 24, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and dismissed it 28 with leave to amend within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 12.) On November 4 and November 18, 2016, 1 1 Plaintiff filed consecutive motions for reconsideration of the Court’s screening order by the district 2 judge. (ECF Nos. 16, 17.) On March 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction and restraining order 3 4 against defendants at Corcoran State Prison and Warden Dave Davey. (ECF No. 21.) 5 On March 6, 2017, the District Court denied Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration of the 6 screening order dismissing his complaint with leave to amend. The Court directed Plaintiff to file his 7 amended complaint within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 22.) 8 On March 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint. (ECF No. 28.) 9 Thereafter, on May 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for priority screening of his second 10 amended complaint, along with a motion for preliminary injunction and restraining order. (ECF No. 11 30.) 12 13 14 15 On June 22, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 33.) II. Discussion A. Request for Priority Screening 16 Plaintiff’s request for priority screening of his second amended complaint is now moot because 17 the Court screened that complaint on June 22, 2017. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for priority 18 screening is HEREBY DENIED. 19 B. Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order 20 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. 21 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). 22 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, 23 that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of 24 equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). 25 An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 26 22 (citation omitted). 27 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, in considering a request for injunctive 28 relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it an actual 2 1 case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); 2 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 3 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, 4 it has no power to hear the matter in question. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102; Valley Forge Christian Coll., 5 454 U.S. at 471. Thus, “[a] federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction 6 over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the 7 rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 8 (9th Cir.1983); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) (listing persons bound by injunction). 9 As indicated, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction and restraining order on March 10 1, 2017. By that motion, Plaintiff seeks immediate release from disciplinary segregation and return to 11 single cell status, an order for defendants to return all of his “real, personal, and legal Property” and 12 compensation in return for agreeing to withdraw four inmate property appeals. Plaintiff also seeks 13 transfer to another prison or release from the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 14 Rehabilitation. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff filed a “secondary” motion for emergency preliminary 15 injunction and restraining order on May 8, 2017. (ECF No. 30.) 16 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, and a third amended 17 complaint has not been filed. As a result, at this stage of the proceedings, the Court does not have 18 before it an actual case or controversy. The Court also does not have jurisdiction over the defendants 19 in this action, as there has been no determination that Plaintiff has stated cognizable claims for relief, 20 no service of any complaint has been ordered and no defendants have appeared in this action. Thus, 21 the Court does not have jurisdiction at this time to issue any injunctive relief. Until such time as there 22 is an operative complaint with cognizable claims for relief, any requests for preliminary injunctive 23 relief are premature. 24 III. 25 For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions for a 26 Conclusion and Recommendation preliminary injunction and restraining order, filed March 1 and May 8, 2017, be DENIED. 27 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 3 1 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written 2 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 3 Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 4 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on 5 appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 6 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 7 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara June 22, 2017 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?