Velez, Jr. v. Lewis et al
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Deny Plaintiff 8 Motion for Injunctive Relief, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/16/17. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R Due Within Thirty Days. (Gonzalez, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ROBERT VELEZ, Jr.,
LEWIS, et. al.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00026-DAD-SKO (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff, Robert Velez, Jr., a state inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a
motion seeking injunctive relief for the implementation of various procedures for delivering legal
mail to inmates at California Correctional Institution (“CCI”) in Tehachapi, California. (Doc. 8.)
As an initial matter and as stated in the recently issued screening order, Plaintiff has not
stated a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. As such, there is no actual case or
controversy before the Court at this time, and Court lacks the jurisdiction to issue the order sought
by Plaintiff. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009); Stormans, Inc. v.
Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009); 18 U.S.C. ' 3626(a)(1)(A). ). If the Court does not
have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id.
Further, requests for prospective relief are limited by 18 U.S.C. ' 3626 (a)(1)(A) of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court ensure the relief “is narrowly drawn,
extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right, and is the least
intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right.” Although Plaintiff raises
claims of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in this action, the injunctive relief
he seeks relates to delivery and handling of inmates’ legal mail. Relief for Plaintiff cannot be
narrowly drawn here as Plaintiff’s requested relief is unrelated to the violation of the rights he
asserts in this action.
Plaintiff is not precluded from attempting to state cognizable claims in a new action if he
believes his civil rights are being violated beyond his pleadings in this action. The seriousness of
Plaintiff=s accusations concerning delivery of his mail, however, cannot and do not overcome a
jurisdictional bar. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 103-04 (A[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and
redressability constitutes the core of Article III=s case-or-controversy requirement, and the party
invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence.@) This action is
simply not the proper vehicle for obtaining the relief Plaintiff seeks.1
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff=s motion for injunctive
relief, filed on February 7, 2017, (Doc. 8), be DENIED for lack of jurisdiction.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 30
days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written
objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned “Objections to
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 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)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 16, 2017
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff=s motion also fails to make the requisite showing, supported by admissible evidence, to obtain a
preliminary injunction. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20-4, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376
(2008). However, the Court need not reach the merits of Plaintiff=s motions in light of the fact that the jurisdictional
bar is fatal to his requests for relief. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493, 129 S.Ct. at 1149; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.
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?