Petillo v. Galliger et al

Filing 15

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending That Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief Be Denied 1 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/26/2018: 14-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISAIAH J. PETILLO, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 vs. 1:18-cv-00217-LJO-GSA-PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED GALLAGHER, et al., 15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS 16 17 I. BACKGROUND Isaiah J. Petillo (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 19 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 commencing this action on February 12, 2018. (ECF No. 1.) In the Complaint, Plaintiff 21 requests an injunction “ASAP” for officials at Corcoran State Prison (CSP) to return his 22 personal property. (Id. at 8.)1 The court construes this request as a motion for preliminary 23 injunctive relief. 24 II. Plaintiff filed the Complaint PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 25 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” 26 Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) 27 28 1 All page numbers cited herein are those assigned by the court's CM/ECF system and not based on Plaintiff’s pagination of his Complaint. 1 1 (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely 2 to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 3 preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the 4 public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear 5 showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted). 6 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, in considering a request for 7 injunctive relief, the court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have 8 before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 9 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church 10 and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the court does not have an 11 actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Lyons, 461 12 U.S. at 102; Valley Forge Christian Coll., 454 U.S. at 471. Thus, “[a] federal court may issue 13 an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter 14 jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the 15 court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. ' 3626(a)(1)(A) of the 16 17 Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the court find the Arelief [sought] is narrowly 18 drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the 19 least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.@ 20 Discussion 21 The court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff. At this stage of the 22 proceedings, defendants have not been served or appeared in this case. “A federal court may 23 issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter 24 jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the 25 court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). 26 Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief should be denied. 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion 3 for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on February 12, 2018, be DENIED for lack of 4 jurisdiction. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 7 (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 8 written objections with the court. 9 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 10 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 11 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 12 (9th Cir. 1991)). Such a document should be captioned "Objections to 13 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 26, 2018 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?