Sekerke v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 78

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION re 76 MOTION Ex Parte Request for a Prison Transfer MOTION for Order Upon CDCR Officials to Stop Retaliation and Assaults and Injunction filed by Keith Wayne Sekerke. It is hereby recommended that plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief be denied. No later than 5/20/2017, the parties may file written objections with the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 4/17/2017.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dxj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No.: 15-CV-573-JLS(WVG)

KEITH WAYNE SEKERKE,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION RE:
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
INJUNCTION FOR PRISON
TRANSFER AND OTHER ORDERS

SHERIFF DEPUTY GONZALEZ,

15

Defendant.

16

[Doc. No. 76.]

17
18

Plaintiff Keith Wayne Sekerke appears pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

19

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks an

20

injunction, asking the Court to order the California Department of Corrections and

21

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to transfer him to a different prison and to order prison guards to

22

cease assaulting, and retaliating against, him. (Doc. No. 76.) This Court respectfully

23

RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be DENIED.

24

This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for excessive force

25

when Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee on July 9, 2014. He alleges the Defendant, San

26

Diego County Sheriff Deputy Gonzalez, used excessive force against him in a courtroom

27

of the San Diego Superior Court. He claims Defendant strangled him and assaulted him in

28

various other ways while Plaintiff was restrained in chains.
1
15-CV-573-JLS(WVG)

1

On April 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion, seeking an injunction asking

2

the Court to order the CDCR to transfer him to another prison and to order the guards at

3

the Kern Valley State Prison to cease assaulting him and retaliating against him for

4

attempting to litigate this lawsuit.

5

The purpose of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction is to

6

preserve the status quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that

7

justice requires the court to intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the action

8

are ultimately determined. Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). “A

9

plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction [or temporary restraining order] must establish

10

that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the

11

absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an

12

injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7,

13

20 (2008). “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that

14

should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of

15

persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations

16

omitted) (emphasis in original).

17

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for

18

preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary

19

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

20

U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church

21

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

22

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

23

prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation

24

Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn,

25

extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the

26

least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.”

27

Here, Plaintiff requests a transfer to a different prison because his access to the law

28

library at Kern Valley State Prison is allegedly being impeded and the guards have
2
15-CV-573-JLS(WVG)

1

assaulted him for litigating this case. However, the equitable relief Plaintiff requests is not

2

sufficiently related to his underlying legal claims to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements

3

that apply to federal courts. Plaintiff’s underlying claims are against San Diego County

4

Deputy Sheriff Gonzalez and occurred in a courtroom of the San Diego Superior Court.

5

His claims do not involve Kern Valley Prison or any CDCR prison guard. Any alleged

6

actions taken against him several years after Defendant Gonzalez allegedly assaulted him

7

and in a location hundreds of miles away from San Diego are separate and distinct from

8

the underlying facts of this case. Thus, ordering Plaintiff transferred to a different prison

9

would not address or redress any alleged injury in the instant case.

10

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief that is not narrowly

11

drawn to correct the violation of his rights at issue in this action. Any alleged guard assaults

12

or retaliation against Plaintiff at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California are

13

factually disconnected from, and unrelated to, the core facts of this case and are properly

14

the subject of a separate section 1983 action if Plaintiff chooses to pursue that route. The

15

constitutional and statutory requirements applicable to equitable relief preclude Plaintiff

16

from entitlement to generalized relief such as an order directing that prison officials transfer

17

him to a different prison. The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties before it in this

18

action and to Plaintiff’s claim for damages arising from an incident of alleged excessive

19

force on July 9, 2014. See, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-

20

04 (1998) (“[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core

21

of Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction

22

bears the burden of establishing its existence.”) (citation omitted); Am. Civil Liberties

23

Union of Nev. v. Masto, 670 F.3d 1046, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[F]ederal courts may

24

adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies.”) (citation and internal quotation

25

marks omitted).

26
27

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for
injunctive relief be DENIED.

28
3
15-CV-573-JLS(WVG)

1

This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District

2

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). No later

3

than May 20, 2017, the parties may file written objections with the Court. The document

4

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.”

5

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result

6

in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir.

7

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED: April 17, 2017

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
15-CV-573-JLS(WVG)