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)

Download PDF
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?