Jones v. Arnette, et al.
Filing
70
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending That Plaintiff's 62 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief be Denied, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/3/2021. Objections to F&R due within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JEREMY JONES,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
vs.
ARNETTE, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
1:16-cv-01212-DAD-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF BE DENIED
(ECF No. 62.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS
17
18
I.
BACKGROUND
19
Jeremy Jones (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
20
with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act
21
(ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132.
22
On January 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Notice to the Court and Motion to
23
Compel,” in which he requests the court to compel officials at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP)
24
to provide him access to five boxes of legal property that he needs to litigate this case. (ECF No.
25
62.) The court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief.
26
II.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
27
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed
28
on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that
1
1
the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at
2
374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the
3
plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
4
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for
5
preliminary injunctive relief, the court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter,
6
it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102,
7
103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of
8
Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the court does not
9
have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id.
10
III.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
11
Plaintiff requests a court order compelling prison officials at KVSP to give him access to
12
the boxes of his legal property that are in storage because he is not allowed more than six cubic
13
feet of property in his cell.
14
Analysis
15
It appears from Plaintiff’s request that the documents he wishes to access are at KVSP.
16
If so, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order Plaintiff seeks. The court cannot issue an
17
order compelling officials at KVSP to act because the court lacks personal jurisdiction over them.
18
“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject
19
matter jurisdiction over the claim; [however] it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons
20
not before the court.” See Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th
21
Cir. 1985). Here, Plaintiff filed his case against defendants at California State Prison-Los
22
Angeles County in Lancaster, California (CSP-Lancaster) for events occurring when Plaintiff
23
was incarcerated there. Plaintiff is now at KVSP, but KVSP officials are not currently before the
24
court in this case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the court to issue an order for KVSP officials
25
to provide him documents must be denied.
26
IV.
27
28
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for
preliminary injunctive relief, filed on January 21, 2021, be DENIED.
2
1
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
2
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen
3
(14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file
4
written objections with the court.
5
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
6
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v.
7
Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394
8
(9th Cir. 1991)).
Such a document should be captioned “Objections to
9
10
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
March 3, 2021
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?