Robinson v. Davey et al
Filing
37
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending That Plaintiff's 36 Request for Preliminary Injunctive Relief be Denied, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/5/18. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ANTHONY L. ROBINSON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
DAVE DAVEY, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
1:17-cv-01524-DAD-GSA (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED
(ECF No. 36.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS
17
18
I.
BACKGROUND
19
Anthony L. Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
20
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint
21
commencing this action on November 15, 2017. (ECF No. 1.)
22
On December 3, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which is
23
now before the court. (ECF No. 36.)
24
II.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
25
AA plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed
26
on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,
27
that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.@
28
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Counsel, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 19, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008).
1
1
(citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff
2
is entitled to relief. Id. at 21 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
3
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for
4
preliminary injunctive relief, the court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter,
5
it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102,
6
103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of
7
Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the court does not
8
have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id.
9
Analysis
10
Plaintiff requests the court to order Defendants to return Plaintiff’s legal property to him
11
at Corcoran State Prison, where Plaintiff is currently incarcerated. 1 Plaintiff believes that his
12
property was sent to Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP) on November 19, 2018, because
13
Plaintiff was scheduled to be transferred to SVSP on that date, but Plaintiff has learned that he
14
is not going to be transferred. Plaintiff asserts that he needs his property to respond to the
15
court’s order directing him to either amend the complaint or notify the court that he wishes to
16
proceed on the claims found cognizable by the court.
17
Plaintiff brings this § 1983 case against prison officials at Corcoran State Prison for
18
events allegedly occurring there in 2013. Plaintiff now requests a court order compelling
19
prison officials at Corcoran State Prison to act on his behalf.
20
any of the claims in this case, which is based upon past events occurring in 2013. Moreover,
21
the court has no jurisdiction over any of the defendants in this case because none of the
22
defendants have appeared in this case. “A federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has
23
personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not
24
attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States
25
Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985).
Such an order would not remedy
Further, the court recognizes that
26
27
Plaintiff also requests copies of his complaint and the court’s order directing him to either
amend the complaint or notify the court that he wishes to proceed on the claims found cognizable by the court.
(ECF No. 36 at 5:12-15.) By separate order, this request shall be granted.
1
28
2
1
prison administrators “should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and
2
execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order
3
and discipline and to maintain institutional security.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-
4
322 (1986) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1970).
5
6
7
8
Accordingly, Plaintiff=s request for a preliminary injunction must be denied.
III.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion
for a preliminary injunction, filed on December 3, 2018, be DENIED for lack of jurisdiction.
9
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
10
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen
11
(14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file
12
written objections with the court.
13
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
14
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v.
15
Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394
16
(9th Cir. 1991)).
Such a document should be captioned "Objections to
17
18
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
December 5, 2018
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?