Dillingham v. Emerson
Filing
90
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Adminstrative Relief be Denied re 88 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Jerry Dillingham ; referred to Judge Ishii,signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/16/2020. (Objections to F&R due within 14-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
JERRY DILLINGHAM,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00507-AWI-SAB (PC)
11
Plaintiff,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE
RELIEF BE DENIED
12
v.
13
N. EMERSON, et al.,
14
(ECF No. 88)
Defendants.
15
16
17
18
Plaintiff Jerry Dillingham is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for emergency administrative relief, filed
19
September 15, 2020. Plaintiff contends that on September 8, 2020, he was threatened of harm
20
because of his commitment offense and requests a transfer from Kern Valley State Prison-where
21
he is currently housed. Because Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an direct prison officials to
22
act on his behalf, the Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a request for a preliminary injunction.
23
I.
24
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
25
This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendants
26
Emerson, Wilson, Wescoat, Velasco, Loftin, Martines, Marsh and Doe 1, in their individual
27
capacities, for conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against
28
Defendant Wescoat for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (ECF No. 50.) The
1
1
incidents at issue in this action took place while Plaintiff was housed at Substance Abuse
2
Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran (“SATF”).
3
Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on March 24, 2020. (ECF No. 68.) After an
4
unsuccessful settlement conference, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order on
5
August 26, 2020. (ECF No. 87.)
6
II.
7
LEGAL STANDARD
8
9
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of
equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure
10
the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v.
11
Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction [or
12
temporary restraining order] must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is
13
likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities
14
tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources
15
Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
16
“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be
17
granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v.
18
Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). A
19
party seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction simply cannot prevail when
20
that motion is unsupported by evidence.
21
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary
22
injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before
23
it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley
24
Forge Christian Coll. V. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471
25
(1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear
26
the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. §
27
3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief
28
[sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal
2
1
right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.”
2
A federal court may issue emergency injunctive relief only if it has personal jurisdiction
3
over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. See Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti
4
Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that one “becomes a party officially, and is
5
required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of summons or other authority-asserting
6
measure stating the time within which the party served must appear to defend.”). The Court may
7
not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before it. See Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v.
8
Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 234-35 (1916); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 1983).
9
III.
10
DISCUSSION
11
The Court lacks jurisdiction to issue the orders sought by Plaintiff because such order would
12
not remedy any of the claims upon which this case proceeds. This case was filed against Defendants
13
at SATF based on events occurring before Plaintiff filed the complaint. Plaintiff now requests a court
14
order for prospective relief to protect him from present and future misconduct by prison personnel
15
and/or fellow inmates. Because such an order would not remedy any of the claims in this case, which
16
are based upon past events, the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff. The
17
pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison personnel in general.
18
Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599
19
F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). Rather, the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this
20
action and to the cognizable legal claim upon which it proceeds. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493.
21
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied.
22
IV.
23
RECOMMENDATION
24
25
26
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for
emergency administrative relief be DENIED.
This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge
27
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14)
28
days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written
3
1
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
2
Findings and Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the
3
specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,
4
838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
5
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 16, 2020
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?