Asberry v. Biter

Filing 64

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION to Deny Plaintiff's 20 24 Motions for Court Order; Fourteen Day Objection Deadline; Clerk to Serve Copy of this Order on Litigation Coordinator 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
TONY ASBERRY,

Case No. 1:16-cv-01741-DAD-MJS (PC)

11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
C.RELEVANTE, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
17

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR
COURT ORDER
(ECF Nos. 20, 24)
FOURTEEN DAY OBJECTION
DEADLINE
CLERK TO SERVE COPY OF THIS
ORDER ON LITIGATION
COORDINATOR

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on the
following claims: an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need against defendants Lozovoy and Relevante, an Eighth Amendment
conditions of confinement claim against defendants Ferris and Godfrey, and a First
Amendment retaliation claim against defendants Ferris and Godfrey.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s March 9, 2017, motion for court order, asking that
the Court order Defendants to allow him to review his medical file. (ECF No. 20.) At the
time the motion was filed, no defendants had appeared in the action. Accordingly, no

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

opposition was filed.
Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s April 17, 2017 “Motion in Support of Ongoing
Violations,” which seeks to bolster his prior request and states that he also has had
difficulty reviewing other files at his current institution. (ECF No. 24.) Again, no
opposition was filed.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The pendency of this action does
not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general or enable it to provide
relief that is not the subject of the operative complaint. Summers v. Earth Island
Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969
(9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the
cognizable legal claims upon which the action proceeds. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491-93;
Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. A court should not issue an injunction when the relief sought
is not of the same character as that sought in the underlying action and the injunction
deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the underlying action. De Beers
Consol. Mines v. U.S., 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). Moreover, while A[a] federal court
may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter
jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not
before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th
Cir. 1985) (emphasis added).
Here, Plaintiff’s claims concern his medical treatment and conditions of
confinement at Kern Valley State Prison. However, he now is housed at R.J. Donovan
Correctional Facility and is not in the custody of the named Defendants. It would not
appear that any Defendants could take any action with respect to Plaintiff’s review of his
medical or other files. Furthermore, access to Plaintiff’s files is outside the scope of the
claims upon which the action proceeds. To the extent Plaintiff claims that officials at
Donovan have interfered with his access to the courts, such claims must be brought in
a separate action. The motions for court order should be denied.

28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Nevertheless, the Court is cognizant that Plaintiff’s ability to access his records
may impact his ability to timely and effectively litigate this action. Accordingly, the Court
will, by way of this order, request the assistance of the Litigation Coordinator at
Plaintiff’s institution in ensuring that Plaintiff is afforded adequate opportunities to
access his files, to the extent doing so is consistent with institutional order and security.
See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-322 (1986) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S.
520, 547 (1970)). The Clerk’s Office will be directed to serve a copy of this order on the
Litigation Coordinator.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions
for court order (ECF No. 20) be DENIED.
The findings and recommendation are submitted to the United States District
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and recommendation, any party
may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a
document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
Recommendation.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen
(14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.
Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923
F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24

Dated:

September 12, 2017

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
3