Asberry v. Biter
Filing
62
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that to Deny 42 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction; Fourteen (14) Day Objection Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/12/2017. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd. Objections to F&R due by 9/29/2017. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TONY ASBERRY,
12
13
14
15
16
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 1:16-cv-01741-DAD-MJS (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DENY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
C. RELEVANTE, et al.,
(ECF NO. 42)
Defendants.
FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION
DEADLINE
17
18
19
20
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
21
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on the following
22
claims: an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need
23
against defendants Lozovoy and Relevante, an Eighth Amendment conditions of
24
confinement claim against defendants Ferris and Godfrey, and a First Amendment
25
retaliation claim against defendants Ferris and Godfrey.
26
27
28
1
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s August 3, 2017 motion for a temporary restraining
2
order and preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 42.) Defendants filed oppositions. (ECF Nos.
3
52, 54.) Plaintiff filed no reply. The matter is submitted. Local Rule 230(l).
4
Plaintiff’s claims in this action concern his medical treatment and conditions of
5
confinement at Kern Valley State Prison. However, he now is housed at R.J. Donovan
6
Correctional Facility and is not in the custody of the named Defendants. The instant
7
motion seeks injunctive relief requiring specific action by Donovan officials in relation to
8
Plaintiff’s medical care, and prohibiting retaliation by the same officials.
9
The relief Plaintiff seeks is not available in this action. Federal courts are courts of
10
limited jurisdiction. The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over
11
prison officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492-93
12
(2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s
13
jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the cognizable legal claims upon
14
which the action proceeds. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.
15
While A[a] federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the
16
parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the
17
rights of persons not before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753
18
F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). To the extent Plaintiff claims officials at
19
Donovan have interfered with his medical care or retaliated against him, such claims are
20
not properly before this Court and should be brought in a separate action.
21
22
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction be DENIED.
23
The findings and recommendation are submitted to the United States District
24
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
25
fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and recommendation, any party
26
may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a
27
document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
28
2
1
Recommendation.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen
2
(14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file
3
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.
4
Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923
5
F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 12, 2017
/s/
9
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
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?