Davis v. State of California et al
Filing
37
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending that Plaintiff's 35 Motion for Preliminary Injunction be Denied for Lack of Jurisdiction; Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/18/2019. Objections to F&R due within FOURTEEN (14) Days. (Orozco, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JEROME MARKIEL DAVIS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
15
Defendants.
Case No. 1:18-cv-00832-DAD-BAM (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(ECF No. 35)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
16
17
18
I.
Background
Plaintiff Jerome Markiel Davis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
19
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on
20
Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant Roberts in her individual capacity for deliberate
21
indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment, arising from the alleged incident of food
22
tampering.
23
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to order CDCR envelopes and stationary,
24
filed October 23, 2019, which the Court construes as a motion for preliminary injunction. (ECF
25
No. 35.) Defendant Roberts has not filed a response to the motion, and the deadline to do so has
26
expired.
27
28
In his motion, Plaintiff argues that although CDCR has an indigent system for inmates,
they do not like to accommodate inmates who are proceeding pro per in lawsuits with envelopes,
1
1
without a court order. Therefore, Plaintiff requests that the Court order CDCR to provide him
2
with items such as envelopes, stationary, and pens, on the basis that he is an indigent pro per
3
inmate. (Id.)
4
II.
5
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter
6
v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a
7
preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to
8
suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his
9
favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction
10
may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation
11
omitted).
12
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for
13
preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it
14
have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983);
15
Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S.
16
464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no
17
power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18
18
U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find
19
the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation
20
of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the
21
Federal right.”
22
Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison
23
officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v.
24
United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties
25
in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555
26
U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.
27
In his motion, Plaintiff does not seek injunctive relief against Defendant Roberts, who is
28
the only defendant remaining in this action. “A federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it
2
1
has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not
2
attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. U.S. Immigration
3
Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). Thus, the Court must deny Plaintiff’s motion because it
4
lacks jurisdiction over CDCR generally, or any staff apparently responsible for the distribution of
5
envelopes or stationary to indigent inmates.
6
III.
7
8
9
Recommendation
Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary
injunction, (ECF No. 35), be DENIED for lack of jurisdiction.
These Findings and Recommendation will be 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 being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written
12
objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
13
Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
14
specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual
15
findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v.
16
Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
17
18
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
November 18, 2019
A. McAuliffe
_
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?