Martinez v. Davey

Filing 34

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's First Motion to Extend Time to Amend or Respond; Thirty Day Deadline to Amend or Respond to Screening Order; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Deny Plaintiff's Request for Injunctive Relief re 32 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/4/18. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. Amended Complaint Due Within Thirty Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICARDO MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO AMEND
OR RESPOND
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO AMEND OR
RESPOND TO SCREENING ORDER

D. DAVEY,
Defendant.

15

1:16-cv-01658-AWI-MJS (PC)

16

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

17

(ECF No. 32)

18

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION
DEADLINE

19
20

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42

21
22

U.S.C. ' 1983.

23

On March 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed an “Objection Letter to the Court” stating his

24

inability to timely comply with the Court’s order and requesting injunctive relief. (ECF

25

No. 32.)

26

I.

27

Extension of Time
The Court construes Plaintiff’s objections as request for an extension of time.

28
1

1
2
3

Plaintiff states that he does not currently have access to his legal materials due to a
transfer. He seeks additional time to secure these materials and prepare an appropriate
response.
Good cause having been presented to the Court, Plaintiff is granted thirty (30)

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

days from the date of service of this order in which to file an amended complaint or
otherwise respond to the Court’s screening Order.
II.

Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiff also requests Court assistance with various current and future-expected

care health care issues. The Court construes this as a request for injunctive relief.
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”); his
complaint is based on events at California State Prison, Corcoran (“CSP”). (See ECF
No. 23.) The Court screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and found no

12
cognizable claims. (ECF No. 31.) No other parties are currently before the Court.
13
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The pendency of this action does
14
not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general or enable it to provide relief
15
that is not the subject of the operative complaint. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555
16
U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010).
17

The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the cognizable legal

18
claims upon which the action proceeds. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491-93; Mayfield, 599
19
F.3d at 969. A court should not issue an injunction when the relief sought is not of the
20
same character as that sought in the underlying action and the injunction deals with a
21
matter lying wholly outside the issues in the underlying action. De Beers Consol. Mines
22

v. U.S., 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). Moreover, while “[a] federal court may issue an

23
injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction
24
over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the
25
court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985)
26
(emphasis added).
27
28
2

Here, the individuals in charge of Plaintiff’s healthcare are not before the court.

1
2

The Court does not have jurisdiction to order non-parties to act.
Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiff is requesting injunctive relief, the Court will

3
4

recommend his motion be denied.

5

III.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Conclusion
The Court finds that Plaintiff has set forth good cause to justify a thirty day

extension of time. However, under the circumstances, Plaintiff is not entitled to
preliminary injunctive relief.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for an extension of
time is GRANTED. Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's request for
preliminary injunctive relief be DENIED.
These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the United States District
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Within thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, any
party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a

15
16

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendation.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10)

17
days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections
18
19

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order.
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.1991).

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated:

April 4, 2018

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4