Anaya v. Vugt, et al.

Filing 18

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 16 Motion for Injunctive Relief signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/6/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

PETER ANAYA,

10
11
12
13

Case No. 1:16-cv-01094-SKO (PC)
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

v.
VAN VUGT, et. al.,

(Doc. 16)

Defendants.

14
15
16

Plaintiff, Peter Anaya, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

17

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking

18

injunctive relief to prohibit four correctional officers and “the Administrative Office” from

19

accessing and changing his mental health records. (Doc. 16.)

20

As an initial matter, and as stated in the recently issued screening order, Plaintiff has not

21

stated a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. Thus, there is no actual case or

22

controversy before the Court at this time and the Court lacks the jurisdiction to issue the order

23

Plaintiff seeks. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009); Stormans, Inc. v.

24

Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009); 18 U.S.C. ' 3626(a)(1)(A)). If the Court does not

25

have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id.

26

Further, requests for prospective relief are limited by 18 U.S.C. ' 3626 (a)(1)(A) of the Prison

27

Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court ensure the relief “is narrowly drawn,

28

extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right, and is the least
1

1

intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right.”

2

Similarly, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison

3

officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009); Mayfield v.

4

United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties

5

in this action and to the cognizable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers,

6

555 U.S. at 492-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. The Court cannot order prison personnel in

7

general to engage in, or refrain from specific acts.

8

Plaintiff is not precluded from attempting to state cognizable claims in a new action if he

9

believes his civil rights are being violated beyond his pleadings in this action. Even assuming

10

Plaintiff’s allegations are serious and he is entitled to relief if sought in the proper forum, the

11

seriousness of Plaintiff’s accusations concerning the accuracy of information in his mental health

12

records cannot and do not overcome what is a jurisdictional bar. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 103-04

13

(“[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s

14

case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of

15

establishing its existence.”) This action is simply not the proper vehicle for conveyance of the

16

relief Plaintiff seeks.1

17

The claims which Plaintiff asserts in this action also arise from events that allegedly

18

occurred at Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“SATF”) in Corcoran, California. However,

19

following the filing of this action, Plaintiff was transferred and is currently housed at the

20

California State Prison in Corcoran, California (“CSP-Cor”). Plaintiff thus lacks standing in this

21

action to seek relief directed at remedying his current conditions of confinement at CSP-Cor. To

22

the extent his motion seeks relief to remedy past conditions of confinement for the time he was at

23

SATF, it was rendered moot on his transfer to CSP-Cor. See Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368

24

(9th Cir. 1995); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991). Thus, Plaintiff=s motion

25

for a preliminary injunction must be denied. However, given the seriousness of Plaintiff’s

26

allegations, the Wardens and Litigation Office at both facilities, SATF & CSP-Cor, are requested

27
1

28

Plaintiff=s motion also fails to make the requisite showing, supported by admissible evidence, to obtain a
preliminary injunction. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20-4, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376
(2008). However, it is unnecessary to reach the merits of Plaintiff=s motions in light of the fact that the jurisdictional
issue is fatal to his requests for relief. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493, 129 S.Ct. at 1149; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

2

1

to look into the issue and ensure that custody staff are not placing inaccurate information in

2

Plaintiff’s mental health records.

3

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, filed

4

on June 5, 2017, Doc. 16), is DENIED as moot and for lack of jurisdiction, and the Clerk of the

5

Court is directed to forward a copy of this order and Plaintiff’s motion to the Warden’s office and

6

to Litigation Coordinator at SATF and at CSP-Cor, so as to inform them of Plaintiff's concerns.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 6, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

.