Mixon, Jr. v. Tyson et al

Filing 35

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 34 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/18/2019: 14-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LENDWARD ALTON MIXON, JR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

No. 1:16-cv-01868-DAD-BAM (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

H. TYSON, et al.,
(Doc. No. 34)

15

Defendants.
FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

16
17
18

I.

Introduction
Plaintiff Lendward Alton Mixon, Jr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter proceeds on

20

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Jiminez and Metts for deliberate

21

indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The events at issue

22

occurred while Plaintiff was housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and

23

State Prison, in Corcoran, California.

24

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s filing titled, “Motion to Make Court Aware of

25

Circumstances in Regards to Discovery,” filed on January 16, 2019. (Doc. No. 34.) Plaintiff

26

states that when he returned from a November 16, 2018 settlement conference in this case,

27

correctional officers Aboytes and Figueroa at California State Prison-Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”)

28

had confiscated his discovery paperwork, and he has not obtained it as of January 8, 2019. He
1

1

states that he has filed an institutional grievance on the matter and is awaiting a response.

2

Plaintiff seeks a court order that the officers be compelled to return his paperwork.

3

The Court liberally construes Plaintiff’s filing as a motion seeking a preliminary

4

injunction against prison officials at CSP-Sac to return his legal property. The Court addresses

5

the motion without need of Defendants’ response. Local Rule 230(l).

6

II.

Discussion

7

A.

8

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter

9

Legal Standard

v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a

10

preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to

11

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his

12

favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction

13

may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation

14

omitted).

15

“[A] court has no power to adjudicate a personal claim or obligation unless it has

16

jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.,

17

395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969); SEC v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1138–39 (9th Cir. 2007). Similarly, the

18

pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general.

19

Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599

20

F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and

21

to the cognizable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 492-

22

93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

23

B.

Analysis

24

Here, Plaintiff seeks an injunction against prison officials who are not parties to this

25

action, and on issues not related to the substance of his claim, which the Court is without

26

jurisdiction to grant. Further, Plaintiff has not made the clear showing that it is necessary to issue

27

injunctive relief in this matter. His brief filing only shows that he is currently working on

28

obtaining his legal property from prison officials through the grievance process.
2

1

Discovery has only recently opened in this case on November 19, 2018 (Doc. No. 33), and

2

there remains about six months left of the period to complete discovery. There should be ample

3

time for Plaintiff to obtain his materials again and continue his work on discovery in this case.

4

Should Plaintiff be extraordinarily delayed, he may seek an extension of time by filing a motion

5

on good cause shown. Defense counsel is also encouraged to facilitate the return of Plaintiff’s

6

legal property to the extent possible, which may help avoid delays in these proceedings. These

7

current circumstances are not sufficient for the extraordinary remedy of court interference in

8

prison administration.

9

III.

10
11
12

Recommendation
Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary

injunction (Doc. No. 34) be DENIED.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

13

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

14

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may

15

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to

16

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

17

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the

18

magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)

19

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

January 18, 2019

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
3