Renteria v. Matharu et al

Filing 31

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief be Denied 28 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/18/2019: 14-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LUIS RENTERIA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
KABIR MATHARU, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

1:18-cv-00497-LJO-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED
(ECF No. 28.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS

17
18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

Luis Renteria (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

20

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed the

21

Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) On May 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed the First

22

Amended Complaint as a matter of course. (ECF No. 15.) On December 14, 2018, the court

23

issued a screening order dismissing the First Amended Complaint for violation of Local Rule

24

220 and failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 22.) On March 6, 2019,

25

Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, which awaits the court’s requisite screening

26

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 27.)

27
28

On April 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request for access to the law library, which the court
construes as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. (ECF No. 28.)
1

1

II.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

2

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed

3

on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,

4

that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id.

5

at 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the

6

plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

7

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for

8

preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary

9

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

10

95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for

11

Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the

12

Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter

13

in question. Id.

14

Analysis

15

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling officials at the Los Angeles County Jail, where he is

16

currently incarcerated, to provide him with access to the law library.

17

jurisdiction to issue such an order because the order would not remedy any of the claims upon

18

which this case proceeds, additionally the Los Angeles County Jail is not a party to this action.

19

Plaintiff filed this case against medical personnel employed at Kern Valley State Prison in

20

Delano, California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there, based on events occurring before

21

Plaintiff filed this case on May 29, 2018. Plaintiff now requests a court order compelling

22

officials at the Los Angeles County Jail to act. Because such an order would not remedy any of

23

the claims in this case, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff, and

24

Plaintiff’s motion should be denied. And, as stated above, because officials at the Los Angeles

25

County Jail are not a part of this action, the Court lacks jurisdiction over them.

26

III.

27
28

The court lacks

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion

for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on April 15, 2019, be DENIED for lack of jurisdiction.
2

1

///

2

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

3

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

4

(14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file

5

written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

6

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

7

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v.

8

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394

9

(9th Cir. 1991)).

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 18, 2019

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3