James v. United States Marshals Service Agents et al
Filing
42
ORDER: (1) Denying Motion for Immediate Relief and Judicial Assistance; and (2) Denying Motion for Access to the Courts [ECF Doc. Nos. 34 , 37 ]. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 03/06/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KYLE JAMES,
Case No.: 3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
ORDER:
v.
UNITED STATES MARSHAL
SERVICE, et al.,
15
(1) DENYING MOTION FOR
IMMEDIATE RELIEF AND
JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE; AND
Defendants.
16
(2) DENYING MOTION FOR
ACCESS TO THE COURTS
17
18
[ECF Doc. Nos. 34, 37]
19
20
21
Kyle James (“Plaintiff”), currently housed in the George Bailey Detention Facility
22
located in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed this action pursuant to
23
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). See Compl. at 1, ECF Doc.
24
No. 1. On August 8, 2017, the Court dismissed this action for failing to state a claim
25
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. ECF Doc. No. 18. Plaintiff was granted forty five (45)
26
days leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Id. When that time passed and Plaintiff
27
failed to comply with the Court’s Order, the entire action was dismissed. ECF Doc. No.
28
19.
1
3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM
1
Plaintiff later filed a Motion to Set Aside the Judgment which the Court granted, in
2
part, on November 20, 2017. ECF Doc. No. 27. Plaintiff was given an additional sixty
3
(60) days leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Id.
4
On January 3, 2018, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Immediate Action” which the Court
5
liberally construed as a motion seeking immediate injunctive relief and a “Motion for
6
Extension of Time to File First Amended Complaint.” ECF Doc. Nos. 30, 32. The Court
7
DENIED Plaintiff’s “Motion for Immediate Action” and GRANTED him an extension of
8
time to file his First Amended Complaint. ECF Doc. No. 35.
9
However, Plaintiff has instead filed an “Emergency Extraordinary Writ for
10
Immediate Relief,” along with a “Motion to the Court to Order San Diego Central Jail
11
Grant Plaintiff Access to the Courts.” ECF Doc. Nos. 34, 37.
12
I.
Plaintiff’s Motion for “Immediate Relief”1
13
The Court will construe Plaintiff’s Motions as motions seeking injunctive relief.
14
Plaintiff claims he is a “pre-trial detainee” who seeks an order from this Court “transferring
15
Plaintiff into federal custody.” (Pl.’s Mot., ECF Doc. No. 34 at 2-3.) He also seeks an
16
Order from this Court directing the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department to “grant
17
Plaintiff ‘pro-per’ status which entitles Plaintiff to ‘meaningful’ assistance in preparing and
18
filing legal papers.” (Pl.’s Mot., ECF Doc. No. 37, at 1.)
19
Procedurally, a federal district court may issue emergency injunctive relief only if it
20
has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit.
21
See Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting
22
that one “becomes a party officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only
23
upon service of summons or other authority-asserting measure stating the time within
24
which the party served must appear to defend.”). The court may not attempt to determine
25
the rights of persons not before it. See, e.g., Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff also filed the identical Motion is three other civil actions. They are James v. Agnew, et al.,
S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:15-cv-00409-AJB-MDD; James v. Lee, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:16cv-01592-AJB-JLB; James v. Emmens, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:16-cv-02823-WQH-NLS.
2
3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM
1
U.S. 229, 234–35 (1916); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727–28 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant
2
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), an injunction binds only “the parties to the
3
action,” their “officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” and “other persons
4
who are in active concert or participation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 65(d)(2)(A)–(C).
5
All the named Defendants in the matter before this Court are alleged to be federal
6
employees and none of the named Defendants are alleged to be employed by the County
7
of San Diego. Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief that would require the Court to presume
8
jurisdiction over parties who are not part of this action. The Court cannot grant Plaintiff
9
injunctive relief because it has no personal jurisdiction over County of San Diego officials.
10
See FED. R. CIV. P. 65(a)(1), (d)(2); Murphy Bros., Inc., 526 U.S. at 350; Zepeda, 753 F.2d
11
at 727–28. A district court has no authority to grant relief in the form of a temporary
12
restraining order or permanent injunction where it has no jurisdiction over the parties.
13
Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 584 (1999) (“Personal jurisdiction, too, is
14
an essential element of the jurisdiction of a district ... court, without which the court is
15
powerless to proceed to an adjudication.”) (citation and internal quotation omitted).
16
As previously noted, Plaintiff filed the identical motions in a total of four cases he
17
has filed in the Southern District of California. A court “‘may take notice of proceedings
18
in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings
19
have a direct relation to matters at issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir.
20
2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)).
21
Plaintiff’s Motion for a preemptory writ seeking to be released from the custody of the San
22
Diego County Sheriff’s Department, where he was placed by the San Diego Superior Court,
23
has already been denied. See James v. Emmens, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:16-cv-
24
02823-WQH-NLS, ECF Doc. No. 81.
25
Plaintiff’s Motion seeking an Order from the Court directing the San Diego Sheriff’s
26
Department to grant him “pro-per” status has also been previously denied. See id., ECF
27
Doc. No. 89.
28
Therefore, for all these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motions for injunctive relief must be
3
3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM
1
DENIED.
2
II.
Request for Judicial Notice
3
Plaintiff also requests this Court “take notice of status and update in Legal Property
4
issues and psych/pain medication.” ECF Doc. No. 37 at 1–2. “The court may judicially
5
notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known
6
within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily
7
determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” FED. R. EVID.
8
201(b)(1)–(2). Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff is alleging certain facts that are subject
9
to reasonable dispute. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is DENIED.
10
III.
Conclusion and Order
11
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for “Immediate Relief” and
12
Motion for “Access to Courts” are DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is also
13
DENIED. ECF Doc. Nos. 34, 37.
14
Dated: March 6, 2018
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM
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?