(PC)Williams v. Cate, et al., No. 1:2009cv00468 - Document 64 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's 32 Request for a Preliminary Injunction be Denied and Plaintiff's 52 Request for a Preliminary Injunction be Denied signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/9/2011. Referred to Judge Oliver W. Wanger. Objections to F&R due by 3/7/2011. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC)Williams v. Cate, et al. Doc. 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLEN B. WILLIAMS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 Case No. 1:09-cv-00468 OWW JLT (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS BE DENIED v. 14 MATTHEW CATE, et al., 15 Defendants. (Docs. 32 & 52) 16 / 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se an in forma pauperis with a civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has two requests for preliminary injunctions pending before the 19 Court. First, on March 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to recover his legal property held by 20 Sergeant Borem. (Doc. 32.) Second, on July 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion complaining that he is 21 being denied adequate law library access by Sergeant Groth and Lieutenant Raske. (Doc. 52.) Plaintiff 22 also complains that he is in need of mailing and copying supplies. (Id.) 23 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. 24 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff 25 seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely 26 to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 27 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may 28 only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and in considering a request for preliminary 2 injunctive relief, must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v Lyons, 461 3 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, 4 Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (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. Requests for prospective relief are 6 further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires the 7 Court to narrowly draw any injunctive relief such that it “extends no further than necessary to correct 8 the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of 9 the Federal right.” 10 Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter on his claims against Defendants Wegman, Gonzales, 11 Howard, Ortiz, and Bradley regarding alleged obstruction of Plaintiff’ religious practices. (See Docs. 12 17 & 26.) The Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s new allegations regarding law 13 library access and legal property. Moreover, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Sergeant Borem, 14 Sergeant Groth, and Lieutenant Raske, the prison officials allegedly responsible for Plaintiff’s new 15 claims. Thus, the Court is without authority to provide Plaintiff relief regarding these matters. See 16 Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may 17 issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the 18 claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.”). To the extent that 19 these issues are impeding his ability to timely respond to the Court’s deadlines in this action, Plaintiff 20 is advised that he may seek extensions of time on a showing of good cause. To the extent that Plaintiff 21 believes that he has a viable access to the courts claim, he is advised to fully exhaust this claim and to 22 file a new civil rights action thereafter. 23 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 24 1. Plaintiff’s April 2, 2010 request for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 32) be DENIED; and 25 2. Plaintiff’s July 1, 2010 request for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 52) be DENIED. 26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 27 to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days after being 28 served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the Court. 2 1 The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 2 The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 3 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: February 9, 2011 9j7khi /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 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.
