Quiroga v. Youngblood, et al.

Filing 19

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 15 Plaintiff's Motion for Federal Oversight Enforced by Attorney General be DENIED re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/27/2017. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MONICO J. QUIROGA, III,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

18
19

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
FEDERAL OVERSIGHT ENFORCED BY
ATTORNEY GENERAL

DONNY YOUNGBLOOD, et al.,
(ECF No. 15)
Defendants.
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

16
17

Case No. 1:17-cv-00002-DAD-BAM (PC)

Plaintiff Monico J. Quiroga, III (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff initiated this action on January 3, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) On July 11, 2017, the

20

assigned Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that this action

21

be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff timely filed

22

objections on July 24, 2017, (ECF No. 14), and those Findings and Recommendations are

23

currently pending before the assigned District Judge.

24
25

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s “Motion for Federal Oversight Enforced by
Attorney General” and Notice of Appeal, both filed on July 24, 2017. (ECF Nos. 15, 16.)

26

A. Notice of Appeal

27

Plaintiff states that he appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

28

“from the final judgment from an order in Eastern District of Cali entered in this action on the 10
1

1

day of 7, 2017.” (ECF No. 16.) Although Plaintiff references a final order, it appears Plaintiff is

2

referring to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations signed on July 10, 2017, and

3

docketed on July 11, 2017. (See ECF No. 13.) As discussed above, those Findings and

4

Recommendations are currently pending before the assigned District Judge, and no final order has

5

been entered in this action. Therefore, the Court will treat Plaintiff’s appeal as an interlocutory

6

appeal.

7

B. Jurisdiction

8

Although there is an interlocutory appeal pending, the Court is not divested of jurisdiction

9

to address the pending motion for federal oversight. See United States v. Pitner, 307 F.3d 1178,

10

1183 n.5 (9th Cir. 2002) (filing of interlocutory appeal “does not divest the trial court of

11

jurisdiction over aspects of the case that are not the subject of the appeal”) (citing Plotkin v. Pac.

12

Tel. & Tel. Co., 688 F.2d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 1982)). The interlocutory appeal apparently

13

relates solely to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal

14

of this action for failure to state a claim, not to the instant motion for federal oversight.

15

C. Motion for Federal Oversight

16

Plaintiff moves for “Federal Oversight enforced by Attorney General pursuant to 42

17

U.S.C. § 1997 for investigation into Death of Pretrial detainee Negligence resulting in Death

18

Sept. 26, 2015.” (ECF No. 15.) The Court will construe the motion as one seeking a preliminary

19

injunction.

20
21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

omitted). In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary

28

injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the
2

1

court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the

2

harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

3

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for

4

preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it

5

have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101–02 (1983);

6

Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S.

7

464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no

8

power to hear the matter in question. Id. Additionally, district courts lack the authority to issue

9

an injunction directed at an entity or individual that is not a party before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v.

10

Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969); Zepeda v. U.S. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th

11

Cir. 1983).

12
13

2. Discussion
Although Plaintiff cites 42 U.S.C. § 1997, Plaintiff appears to reference 42 U.S.C.

14

§ 1997a, which provides the Attorney General with “discretionary authority” to investigate and

15

file suit for the correction of “egregious or flagrant conditions which deprive [prisoners] . . . of

16

any rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution. . . .” 42 U.S.C.

17

§ 1997a(a). To the extent Plaintiff seeks to compel an investigation into the death of the unnamed

18

pretrial detainee, the Court has no authority to issue an injunction directed at the United States

19

Department of Justice or the Attorney General, who are non-parties to this action. See Zenith,

20

395 U.S. at 112; Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727. Even if the Court had jurisdiction to issue the

21

requested injunction, Plaintiff has not met the high burden of showing irreparable harm in the

22

absence of injunctive relief or that the balance of equities tips in favor of an injunction here. As a

23

result, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s motion be denied.

24

D. Conclusion

25

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for federal

26

oversight enforced by attorney general (ECF No. 15) be DENIED.

27

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

28

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within
3

1

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

2

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

3

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file

4

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

5

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

6

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

July 27, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4