Lipsey v. Reddy et al

Filing 51

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Denial of Plaintiff's 49 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 06/04/2018. Referred to Judge O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 6/22/2018. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR.,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

vs.
DR. REDDY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:17-cv-00569-LJO-BAM (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
[Doc. 49]

15
16

Plaintiff Christopher Lipsey is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

17

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s third

18

amended complaint against Defendants Hernandez, Celedon, and Mancilla for excessive force in

19

violation of the Eighth Amendment.

20

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, filed on May

21

29, 2018. (Doc. 49.) Plaintiff states that he has recently moved (and a change of address form

22

was filed in this case, (Doc. 47), but he has not yet received his property, including legal

23

documents pertinent to this matter. Plaintiff seeks an order directing that his property be sent to

24

his current housing location as soon as possible. The Court finds no response from Defendants is

25

necessary, and shall address Plaintiff’s request. Local Rule 230(l).

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

omitted).

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

action, at an institution at which he is no longer housed, and on issues not related to the

15

substance of his claim. The Court has no jurisdiction to issue the specific relief sought here.

16

More importantly, Plaintiff has not made the clear showing that it is necessary to issue

17

injunctive relief in this matter. Plaintiff states that it has been about a month since he has been

18

without his property, and that he filed a 602, but it has gone unanswered. Plaintiff further states

19

that CDCR does not oppose him having his property, however, he believes his property is not

20

being sent due to a 602.

21

In this Court’s experience, it is not unusual for property transfers to take some time

22

following a housing relocation, and Plaintiff should receive his property in due course. Plaintiff

23

has not shown any cause for interfering with prison officials’ regular procedures in these matters.

24

Further, Plaintiff can be accommodated with a reasonable extension of time to allow for his

25

property to continue to be processed and moved. Therefore, by separate order, the Court will

26

grant Plaintiff a thirty-day extension of time to allow for him to obtain his legal property.

27
28

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary
injunction (Doc. 49) be DENIED.

2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

June 4, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

3