(PC) Andrew v. United States of America et al

Filing 42

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Deny 40 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction re 21 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 7/3/2024. Referred to Judge Sherriff; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Rivera, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NORVELL ANDREW, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 15 Defendants. Case No.: 1:22-cv-01290-KES-CDB FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Doc. 40) 14-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE 16 Plaintiff Norvell Andrew is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 17 18 this civil rights action. 19 I. 20 On December 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Preliminary Injunction.” (Doc. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 21 12.) On July 20, 2023, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations to Deny Plaintiff’s 22 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 20.) On October 25, 2023, then assigned District Judge 23 Ana de Alba1 issued her Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations and Denying Motion 24 for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 22.) On March 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Order to Show Cause for a 25 26 Preliminary Injunction & Temporary Restraining Order.” (Doc. 25.) On March 26, 2024, the 27 28 This matter was ultimately reassigned to District Judge Kirk E. Sheriff following Judge de Alba’s elevation to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (See Docs. 23 & 24.) 1 1 undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations to Deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary 2 Injunction. (Doc. 28.) Those findings remain pending and will be considered by District Judge 3 Kirk E. Sherriff in due course. 4 Thereafter, on April 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Preliminary Injunction 5 TRO 65” (Doc. 30) and on May 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Preliminary Injunction 6 TRO Rule 65” (Doc. 33). Responding to Plaintiff’s second and third requests, on May 29, 2024, 7 the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations to Deny Plaintiff’s Motions for Injunctive 8 Relief. (Doc. 36.) Those findings also remain pending and will be considered by District Judge 9 Sherriff in due course. 10 11 On July 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Preliminary Injunction.” (Doc. 40.) This filing is Plaintiff’s fourth motion seeking injunctive relief. 12 II. DISCUSSION 13 Plaintiff’s latest motion states she has previously sought injunctive relief from the Court 14 “and been denied and now finds herself in need to request injunctive relief again.” (Doc. 40 at 1.) 15 Briefly stated, Plaintiff asserts that actions taken by officials at USP Beaumont where she is 16 presently housed, between April 8, 2024, and now, result in her being attacked by other inmates. 17 (Id.) She asks to be “placed on a drop-out yard,” to receive medical treatment for her “eye being 18 off center” and her broken hand, a hearing on the merits of her motion, and any other appropriate 19 relief. (Id. at 2.) 20 21 The Applicable Legal Standards As Plaintiff has been advised on previous occasions (see, e.g., Doc. 20 at 2-3, Doc. 28 at 22 2-3 & Doc. 36 at 2-3), “[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of 23 right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). A plaintiff 24 seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he or is likely to succeed on the merits, that 25 he or she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance 26 of equities tips in his or her favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20. 27 28 A “federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of 2 1 persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). “[A]n 2 injunction must be narrowly tailored ‘to affect only those persons over which it has power,’ . . . 3 and to remedy only the specific harms shown by the plaintiffs, rather than ‘to enjoin all possible 4 breaches of the law.’” Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting 5 Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727, 728 n.1). Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the 6 Court jurisdiction to enjoin non-parties based on conduct unrelated to the suit sub judice. See Fed. 7 R. Civ. P. 65(d) (an injunction may bind only the parties, their officers, agents, servants, 8 employees, and attorneys, and other persons “in active concert or participation” with those 9 persons). In other words, the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the 10 viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Id. 11 Separately, the injunctive relief sought must be related to the claims brought in the 12 complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 13 2015) (“When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the 14 court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.”). In other words, “there must be a 15 relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct 16 asserted in the underlying complaint.” Id. at 636 (adopting Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 17 471 (8th Cir. 1994)). Absent a nexus between the injury claimed in the motion and the underlying 18 complaint, the Court lacks the authority to grant Plaintiff injunctive relief. Id. A preliminary 19 injunction only is appropriate when it grants relief of the same nature as that to be finally granted. 20 Id. (citing De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)). 21 22 Analysis As reflected on the Court’s docket and in her instant motion, Plaintiff remains housed at 23 the United States Penitentiary in Beaumont, Texas. (See Doc. 40.) Plaintiff’s instant motion once 24 again involves that facility — a location outside of the Court’s jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s 25 claims in this action involve defendants employed at the United States Penitentiary in Atwater, 26 California. 27 28 As this Court has previously explained (see Doc. 36), because Plaintiff’s claims in this action involve defendants employed at the federal prison facility in Atwater, California—not 3 1 defendants employed at the facility in Beaumont, Texas—this Court does not have personal or 2 subject matter jurisdiction over prison officials in Beaumont, Texas. Therefore, the Court cannot 3 grant the relief Plaintiff seeks. See Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727; Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC, 810 4 F.3d at 633. Stated plainly, in order to seek and possibly obtain injunctive relief for the actions 5 referenced in the instant motion, occurring in Beaumont, Texas, between April 8, 2024, and the 6 present, Plaintiff must seek relief in a Texas court. The Eastern District of California is not the 7 appropriate court from which to seek relief for actions taken by officials located in another state. 8 This Court cannot “‘enjoin all possible breaches of the law.’” Price, 390 F.3d at 1117. Because 9 this Court cannot grant the relief Plaintiff seeks, the undersigned will once again recommend 10 Plaintiff’s motion be denied. 11 Finally, Plaintiff is advised that this Court is one of the busiest district courts in the nation. 12 Plaintiff has now filed three repetitive, unjustified motions with the Court, causing delay in this 13 proceeding and the waste of judicial resources. Plaintiff does not appear to appreciate that her 14 motions for injunctive relief sought against parties who are not named in this action cannot be 15 granted because the Court lacks jurisdiction. Instead, Plaintiff has chosen repeatedly to ignore the 16 Court’s previous findings that explain why it cannot grant the relief she seeks. Plaintiff is advised 17 that in the event she continues to file motions for injunctive relief that do not establish this 18 Court’s jurisdiction and/or do not demonstrate that the four Winter factors have been met, the 19 undersigned may choose to recommend dismissal of this action for Plaintiff’s failure to obey 20 court orders, declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant restricted from further filings in this Court, 21 and/or impose other sanctions 22 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 23 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion 24 for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 40) be DENIED. 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 4 1 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the district judge assigned to 2 this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these 3 Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the Court. The 4 document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 5 Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 6 rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 7 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: July 3, 2024 ___________________ _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

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?