-DLB (PC) Henderson v. Rodriguez, No. 1:2008cv00188 - Document 93 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending That Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Be Denied 85 , (OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS), signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 8/23/11: Matter referred to Judge O'Neill. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
-DLB (PC) Henderson v. Rodriguez Doc. 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CURTIS LEE HENDERSON, SR., 10 CASE NO. 1:08-CV-00188-LJO-DLB PC Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER BE DENIED (DOC. 85) G. RODRIGUEZ, 13 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS Defendant. 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff Curtis Lee Henderson, Sr. (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the 17 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro 18 se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is 19 proceeding against Defendant G. Rodriguez for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. 20 On June 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order against prison officials 21 at Corcoran State Prison. The Court construes this as a motion for preliminary injunction. 22 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on 23 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 24 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. 25 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (citations omitted). The 26 purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo or to prevent irreparable 27 injury pending the resolution of the underlying claim. Sierra On-line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, 28 Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court 2 must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 3 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 4 454 U.S. 464, 47 (1982). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has 5 no power to hear the matter in question. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102. Thus, “[a] federal court may 6 issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter 7 jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the 8 court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). 9 Plaintiff complains of an alleged deprivation of his legal property in June of 2011, which 10 is not a cause of action here. This action concerns retaliatory deprivation of property in 2007. 11 The Court lacks jurisdiction over prison officials at Corcoran State Prison for the alleged 2011 12 incidents. 13 14 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion, filed June 22, 2011, should be DENIED. 15 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 16 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 17 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written 18 objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 19 Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections 20 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. 21 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: August 23, 2011 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.