Smith v. Knowlton

Filing 8

ORDER DENYING 6 Motion for Relief from Judgment and Motion for Preliminary Injunction; this action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/1/19. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH,

9
10
11

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00851-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM JUDGMENT AND MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

KNOWLTON,
(ECF No. 6)

12

Defendant.

13
14

I.

15

Plaintiff Lawrence Christopher Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in

16
17

Background

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On May 23, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations in

18

Smith v. Chanelo, Case No. 1:16-cv-01356-LJO-BAM (PC), recommending that: (1) the action

19

proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint only as to the excessive force claim against

20

Defendants Sotelo, P. Chanelo, D. Wattree, K. Hunt, L. Castro, A. Gonzalez, E. Ramirez, and R.

21

Rodriguez, on March 13, 2013; (2) the Court sever the misjoined claims, into three separate cases

22

and such cases be opened, for excessive force for the incidents of: September 9, 2013 against

23

Defendant D. Knowlton; November 15, 2013 against Defendants E. Weiss, O. Hurtado, and F.

24

Zavleta; and February 6, 2014 against Defendants D. Gibbs and D. Hardy; (3) Plaintiff’s

25

improperly joined claims of February 4, 2015, February 25, 2015, and September 2, 2015 be

26

dismissed without prejudice to re-filing; and (4) the remaining claims and defendants be

27

dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. Smith v. Chanelo, ECF No. 16. The Court

28

adopted the findings and recommendations in full on June 20, 2018, and the misjoined claims
1

1

were accordingly opened as separate actions. (ECF No. 2.) Accordingly, the instant action was

2

opened as Smith v. Knowlton, Case No. 1:18-cv-00851-LJO-BAM (PC). See also Smith v.

3

Weiss, Case No. 1:18-cv-00852-LJO-BAM; Smith v. Gibbs, Case No. 18-cv-00854-LJO-BAM.

4

In the order adopting the findings and recommendations, the Court also ordered Plaintiff

5

to submit a separate filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis for each of the

6

newly opened actions within thirty days. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

7

pauperis was therefore due on or before July 23, 2018.

8

During this time, Plaintiff filed several motions in the originating case of Smith v.

9

Chanelo, seeking relief from judgment, a chance to further amend his complaint, and seeking

10

reconsideration of the Court’s judgment. Smith v. Chanelo, ECF Nos. 20, 22, 23, 24. After

11

reviewing all of Plaintiff’s moving papers, including three proposed amended and supplemental

12

complaints, the undersigned found no grounds that would warrant reconsideration of the earlier

13

decision to sever the case and dismiss the otherwise unrelated claims. Smith v. Chanelo, ECF

14

No. 27.

15

II.

Motion for Relief from Judgment

16

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s November 9, 2018 motion for relief from

17

judgment, motion for a preliminary injunction, and proposed amended complaint. (ECF No. 6.)

18

As in Smith v. Chanelo, Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in severing his various claims, and

19

that his proposed amended complaint successfully alleges the existence of a vast and overarching

20

conspiracy among the nearly 100 named defendants employed at multiple correctional

21

institutions, county law enforcement and prosecutorial offices, and state courts. Plaintiff

22

therefore argues that he is further entitled to a preliminary injunction ordering CDCR officials to

23

transfer him to federal custody for his own safety. (Id.)

24

The Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments in this matter as unpersuasive as they were in Smith

25

v. Chanelo. Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint in this action again fails to include sufficient

26

allegations demonstrating that all of the defendants shared the common objective of the

27

conspiracy, and instead relies upon conclusory allegations. Again, the Court finds no grounds

28

that would warrant reconsideration of the earlier decision to sever this case, and the actions and
2

1

claims will remain separate.

2

III.

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

3

To the extent Plaintiff seeks preliminary injunctive relief in this action, the Court does not

4

have jurisdiction at this time to order the relief sought. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional

5

right to be incarcerated at a particular correctional facility (or to be transferred between state and

6

federal correctional institutions). See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224–25 (1976); McClune

7

v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 38 (2002).

8
9

Furthermore, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request
for preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary

10

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

11

95, 101–02 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church &

12

State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy

13

before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id.

14

At this time, Plaintiff has not yet paid the filing fee or filed an application to proceed in

15

forma pauperis in this action. The action cannot proceed on the merits until Plaintiff has either

16

paid the filing fee in full or been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As such, no case or

17

controversy yet exists before the Court in this matter.

18

IV.

19

For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

20
21
22
23

Conclusion and Order

1. Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment and motion for preliminary injunction, (ECF
No. 6), is DENIED; and
2. This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with
this order.

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

April 1, 2019

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
3