(PC) Lewis v. Adams et al, No. 1:2010cv00266 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 3/4/2011 recommending that 18 MOTION for preliminary injunction be denied. Referred to Judge Oliver W. Wanger. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF

(PC) Lewis v. Adams et al Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 HOMER TYRONE LEWIS, CASE NO. 1:10-CV-00266-OWW-DLB PC 9 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE DENIED 10 Plaintiff, v. 11 DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al., (DOC. 18) 12 Defendants. 13 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS / 14 15 Plaintiff Homer Tyrone Lewis (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 16 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 17 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding 18 on Plaintiff’s amended complaint against Defendants Adams, Junious, Lopez, Davis, Morrison, 19 Tamayo, Johnson and De Azevedo. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for release 20 from administrative segregation and return of Plaintiff’s confiscated legal materials, filed March 21 2, 2011. The Court treats the motion as one 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 Los Angeles 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, 471, 102 S. Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the court does not have an actual case or 5 controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102. 6 Thus, “[a] federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the 7 parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights 8 of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 9 (9th Cir. 1985). 10 Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief for actions taken by prison officials at California 11 Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“CSATF”). Prison officials at CSATF, however, are not 12 part of this action. Plaintiff’s amended complaint complained of events that occurred while 13 Plaintiff was housed at Corcoran State Prison. Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction to determine the 14 rights of persons not before it. Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727. 15 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary 16 injunctive relief, filed March 2, 2011, should be DENIED. 17 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 18 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty19 one (21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file 20 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 21 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections 22 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 23 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: 3b142a March 4, 2011 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.