Hernandez v. Ballam, et al.

Filing 25

ORDER DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to Randomly Assign a District Judge; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Denial of 24 Motion for an Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary Injunction signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/9/2018. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) Days. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ANTHONY CEASAR HERNANDEZ, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 Case No.: 1:17-cv-00468-BAM (PC) ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE v. BALLAM, et al., 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Defendants. 14 15 [ECF No. 24] 16 17 18 Plaintiff Anthony Ceasar Hernandez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 I. Introduction 21 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an order to show cause for a 22 preliminary injunction, filed on February 7, 2018. (ECF No. 24.) 23 In support of his motion, Plaintiff declares that prison officials have become “more 24 aware” of his civil rights case, and have threatened and harassed him as a result. Plaintiff further 25 asserts that he was assaulted, and his protective custody status was unnecessarily revoked by 26 prison officials on February 1, 2018. Plaintiff is also concerned that his property may be lost or 27 misplaced during his housing transfer. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff seeks for the Court to 28 issue a preliminary injunction directing Defendants and prison officials to (1) refrain from 1 1 revoking his protective custody status; (2) prevent him from being housed with general 2 population or non-protective custody inmates; (3) not lose his legal property or interfere with his 3 legal mail; (4) refrain from obstructing his access to the law library and duplication services; and 4 (5) restore Plaintiff’s S.N.Y status. 5 II. Discussion 6 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 7 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 8 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 9 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 10 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction 11 may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation 12 omitted). 13 “[A] court has no power to adjudicate a personal claim or obligation unless it has 14 jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 15 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969); SEC v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1138–39 (9th Cir. 2007). Similarly, the 16 pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general or 17 over Plaintiff’s litigation issues. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009); 18 Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited 19 to the parties in this action and to the cognizable legal claims upon which this action is 20 proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 492-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 21 In this case, although the Court has screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and 22 found it has stated a claim, no defendant has yet been served, and no defendant has yet made an 23 appearance. Further, the Defendants are allegedly yard officers at Valley State Prison, not Mule 24 Creek State Prison, where Plaintiff is currently housed, and this case only concerns past events of 25 alleged excessive force and the failure to protect. The pendency of this action does not give the 26 Court jurisdiction over prison officials generally or over Plaintiff’s litigation issues generally. 27 Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue the relief Plaintiff seeks here. 28 /// 2 The Court understands Plaintiff to be raising potential issues concerning his safety and 1 2 security. To the extent that Plaintiff believes he is in imminent danger, he has other avenues of 3 relief available to him, including filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in state court. E.g., In 4 re Estevez, 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 479, 491 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). At Plaintiff’s request, the Court is also 5 willing to provide a copy of his motion to the Warden of Mule Creek State Prison, if Plaintiff his 6 having difficulty reporting these issues otherwise. However, the pendency of this action does not 7 give the Court jurisdiction to issue the injunctive relief he requests. 8 III. Conclusion 9 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED for the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a 10 district judge to this action. 11 Further, for the reasons explained above, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that 12 Plaintiff’s motion for an order to show cause for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 24) be 13 DENIED, without prejudice. 14 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 15 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 16 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 17 file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 18 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 19 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the 20 magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 21 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara February 9, 2018 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28 3

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?