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
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?