Gradford v. McDougall et al

Filing 27

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that Plaintiff's 26 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief be Denied; Objections, if any, Due within Fourteen (14) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/22/2018.. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM J. GRADFORD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
MCDOUGALL, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

1:17-cv-00201-DAD-GSA-PC
FINDING AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED
(ECF No. 26.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS

BACKGROUND

18

William J. Gradford (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

19

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds with

20

Plaintiff’s initial complaint, filed on February 13, 2017, against defendants Tiexiera and

21

McCarthy for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (ECF No. 1.)

22

On February 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a request for the court to monitor his safety and

23

well-being, and to protect him upon his release in November 2018 to serve his probation. (ECF

24

No. 26.) The court construes Plaintiff’s request as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief.

25

II.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

26

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

27

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008)

28

(citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely
1

1

to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

2

preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the

3

public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear

4

showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted).

5

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

6

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

7

before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103

8

S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church

9

and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the Court does not have an

10

actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Lyons, 461

11

U.S. at 102; Valley Forge Christian Coll., 454 U.S. at 471. Thus, “[a] federal court may issue

12

an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter

13

jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the

14

court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985).

15

Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the

16

Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is

17

narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right,

18

and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.”

19

Discussion

20

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, California.

21

Plaintiff seeks a court order ensuring his safety and well-being there, along with protection

22

upon his release in November 2018 when he begins to serve his probation.

23

The court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff. The events at issue in

24

Plaintiff’s Complaint for this action allegedly occurred at the Stanislaus County Public Safety

25

Center in Modesto, California, when Plaintiff was detained there before he was transferred to

26

Mule Creek State Prison.

27

defendants in this action, and who are not before the court, to act on Plaintiff’s behalf. The

28

only defendants in this case are defendants Tiexiera and McCarthy, who are employed at the

The order Plaintiff seeks would require persons who are not

2

1

Stanislaus County Public Safety Center. Moreover, neither of the defendants has appeared in

2

this case. As discussed above, the court “may not attempt to determine the rights of persons

3

not before the court.” Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727. Therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue

4

the order sought by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s motion must be denied.

5

III.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion

7

for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on February 9, 2018, be DENIED for lack of jurisdiction.

8

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

9

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

10

(14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file

11

written objections with the court.

12

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

13

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v.

14

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394

15

(9th Cir. 1991)).

Such a document should be captioned "Objections to

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 22, 2018

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3