Harris v. Bureau of Prisons, et al.

Filing 16

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order be denied re 15 MOTION Requesting Investigation of Torture, Retaliation, Inhumane Treatment, Denial of Health Care, etc filed by Devon Dante Harris, Jr. ; referred to Judge Ishii,signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 05/21/2018. Objections to F&R due by 6/8/2018(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DEVON DANTE HARRIS, JR.

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

[ECF No. 15]

On May 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting “investigation of torture, retaliation,
inhumane treatment, denial of health care, etc.” (ECF No. 15.)
On May 11, 2018, the undersigned issued a Findings and Recommendation recommending that

21
22

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED

action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

19
20

Case No.: 1:17-cv-01684-AWI-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff Devon Dante Harris, Jr. is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

this action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. (ECF No. 11.)
In the instant motion, Plaintiff indicates that he is currently in custody at the Kern County Jail

23
24

in Bakersfield, California, and he been subjected to retaliation and denied access to legal assistance,

25

telephone communication, outdoor exercise and health care. (ECF No. 15.) The Court construes

26

Plaintiff’s motion as a request for a preliminary injunction.

27

///

28

///
1

1

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of equities

2

so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure the positions

3

until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390,

4

395, 101 S. Ct. 1830, 68 L. Ed. 2d 175 (1981). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must

5

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

6

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

7

the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365,

8

374, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008). “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy,

9

one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of

10

persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972, 117 S. Ct. 1865, 138 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1997)

11

(quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

12

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court must

13

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

14

Ct. 1660, 75 L. Ed. 2d 675 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of

15

Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S. Ct. 752, 70 L. Ed. 2d 700 (1982). If the court does

16

not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Lyons,

17

461 U.S. at 102. Thus, “[a] federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction

18

over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the

19

rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727

20

(9th Cir. 1985).

21

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

22

general. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 491–93, 129 S. Ct. 1142, 173 L. Ed. 2d 1

23

(2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is

24

limited to the parties in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding.

25

Summers, 555 U.S. at 491–93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

26

Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks in this motion. As

27

previously stated, on May 11, 2018, the undersigned issued a Findings and Recommendation to

28

dismiss the action for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. Federal courts are courts of limited
2

1

jurisdiction, Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994), and the Court

2

lacks the jurisdiction to issue any orders regarding Plaintiff’s current conditions of confinement. 18

3

U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009); Lujan v.

4

Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969

5

(9th Cir. 2010). In addition, because there is no justiciable case or controversy, Plaintiff has no

6

standing to seek preliminary injunctive relief and his motion must be denied. Summers v. Earth Island

7

Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559-61 (1992);

8

Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010).

9

II.

10

RECOMMENDATION

11

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a

12

temporary restraining order be denied.
This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

13
14

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days

15

after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with

16

the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

17

Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

18

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

19

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

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated:

24

May 21, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
3