Cook v. City of Antioch et al

Filing 70

ORDER DENYING MOTION by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denying 69 Motion for an Order Granting Law Library Access. (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAVID L. COOK, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 19-cv-01370-PJH ORDER DENYING MOTION v. Re: Dkt. No. 69 MARCOS TORRES, et al., Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983. This case continues on plaintiff’s claims that he was improperly arrested 15 and detained on multiple occasions in Antioch and Concord, California. The defendants 16 are police officers or dispatch workers in those California cities. Plaintiff is currently in 17 federal custody in Oregon. Plaintiff has filed a motion for the court to order a prison 18 warden in Oregon to provide plaintiff additional law library access. Docket No. 69. 19 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The pendency of this action does 20 not give the court jurisdiction over prison officials in general or over the relief requested in 21 plaintiff's motion that is not the subject of the operative complaint. Summers v. Earth 22 Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 23 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to 24 the cognizable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 25 491-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. Generally, it is appropriate to grant in a preliminary 26 injunction “intermediate relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally.” 27 De Beers Consol. Mines v. U.S., 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). A court should not issue an 28 injunction when the relief sought is not of the same character, and the injunction deals 1 with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the underlying action. Id. Moreover, “[a] 2 federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and 3 subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of 4 persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 5 727 (9th Cir. 1985). Thus, Plaintiff's motion must be denied because the court lacks 6 personal jurisdiction over the officials at the Oregon prison and, in any event, the 7 requested relief is not of the same character as that requested in plaintiff's complaint. However, the court notes that a motion for summary judgment is currently pending 9 and plaintiff must file an opposition to the motion. Plaintiff may show this order to officials 10 at his prison demonstrating that he had a due date to file an opposition. Plaintiff’s motion 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 8 (Docket No. 69) is DENIED. Plaintiff will be provided an extension and an opposition to 12 the summary judgment motion should be filed by February 18, 2021. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 6, 2021 15 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton 16 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?