Crisp v. California Health Care Facility et al

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/6/2014 DENYING, without prejudice, plaintiff's 10 "Motions of Consideration" and plaintiff's 11 motion for "Emergency Help". (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

OBI LEE CRISP III,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:14-cv-1345 AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE
FACILITY, et al.,
Defendants.

17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks relief
18
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302
19
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After the screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the
20
court dismissed plaintiff’s original complaint with leave to amend. The court now addresses
21
plaintiff’s requests for interim relief. See ECF Nos. 10 & 11.
22
Plaintiff has filed a 3-part “Motions of Consideration,” seeking (1) a “protective order”
23
against certain objectionable conduct by unspecified persons, (2) a transfer to a federal prison or
24
to the state prison at Vacaville, and (3) a “protective order” regarding unidentified videos of “staff
25
misconduct.” ECF No. 10. The federal district court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and cannot
26
issue orders absent a showing that it has the legal authority to do so, and that the factual predicate
27
for the exercise of that authority exists. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
28
1

1

America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (as courts of “limited jurisdiction,” federal courts “possess

2

only that power authorized by [the] Constitution or statute”).

3

Plaintiff’s now-dismissed complaint does not provide either basis, nor does the motion

4

itself. Accordingly, the motion will be denied without prejudice to its renewal, in proper form, if

5

plaintiff files an amended complaint that survives the screening process. Plaintiff is cautioned

6

that any such renewed motion will not be in proper form if it fails to identify whom the order is

7

intended to constrain, what videos are sought to be protected, and the legal and factual basis for

8

any requested order, including an order for a transfer. See, United States v. Warren, 610 F.2d

9

680, 684 (9th Cir. 1980) (the district court’s “attempt to transfer Warren from state to federal

10

custody violated fundamental principles of comity and separation of powers”); LeMaire v.

11

Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1454 (9th Cir. 1993) (prison conditions must be evaluated “with proper

12

regard for the limited competence of federal judges to micromanage prisons”) (internal quotation

13

marks omitted).

14

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for “Emergency Help.” ECF No. 11. Like the previous

15

motion, this motion seeks a transfer to a federal facility or to the state facility at Vacaville, and

16

accordingly will be denied, without prejudice, for the reasons stated above.

17

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

1. Plaintiff’s “Motions of Consideration” (ECF No. 10) is DENIED without prejudice;

19

2. Plaintiff’s motion for “Emergency Help” (ECF No. 11) is DENIED without prejudice.

20

DATED: October 6, 2014

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2