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)

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