(PC) Hamilton v. Lara et al, No. 1:2008cv01967 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that Plaintiff's 10 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief be Denied, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/11/2010. Referred to Judge Wanger; Objections to F&R due by 7/19/2010.(Verduzco, M)

Download PDF

(PC) Hamilton v. Lara et al Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 EUGENE HAMILTON, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 1:08-cv-01967-OWW-GSA-PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED (Doc. 10.) v. LARA, et al., 13 Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS / 14 15 I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 16 Eugene Hamilton (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner in the custody of the California Department 17 of Corrections and Rehabilitation, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the original complaint commencing this action 19 on December 29, 2008. (Doc. 1.) On April 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed an “Emergency” Motion for 20 Injunction. (Doc. 10.) 21 II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 22 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. 23 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff 24 seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is 25 likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips 26 in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An 27 injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 28 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary 2 injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before 3 it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 4 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 5 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or 6 controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective 7 relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which 8 requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary 9 to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the 10 violation of the Federal right.” 11 The events at issue in this action occurred in 2007 and 2008 while Plaintiff was housed at 12 Corcoran State Prison (“CSP”) in Corcoran, California. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff is now housed at Salinas 13 Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) in Soledad, California, and Plaintiff seeks an order transferring him 14 from SVSP to another facility. The case or controversy requirement cannot be met in light of the 15 fact that the issue Plaintiff seeks to remedy in his motion bears no relation, jurisdictionally, to the 16 past events at CSP giving rise to this suit. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102; 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); also 17 Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1148-49 (2009); Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better 18 Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 102-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998). Because the case-or-controversy requirement 19 cannot be met, the pendency of this action provides no basis upon which to award Plaintiff injunctive 20 relief. Id. The only relief available to Plaintiff in this action, should he prevail, is money damages 21 for the past violation of his constitutional rights while housed at CSP. 22 III. RECOMMENDATION 23 Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motion for 24 preliminary injunctive relief, filed April 30, 2010, be DENIED on the ground that the court lacks 25 jurisdiction in this action to issue the order sought. 26 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) 28 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written 2 1 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 2 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 3 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 4 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: 6i0kij June 11, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.