(PC) Machado v. Harrington et al, No. 1:2010cv00434 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 3 MOTION for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION be DENIED as moot, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/16/2010, referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 1/21/2011.(Marrujo, C)

Download PDF

(PC) Machado v. Harrington et al Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEX MACHADO, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 1:10-cv-00434-AWI-GSA-PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED AS MOOT (Doc. 3.) v. KELLY HARRINGTON, et al., 15 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS Defendants. 16 / 17 18 I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 19 Alex Machado (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner in the custody of the California Department 20 of Corrections and Rehabilitation, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights 21 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the original complaint commencing this action 22 on March 11, 2010, together with a motion for preliminary injunction. (Docs. 1, 3.) 23 II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 24 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. 25 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff 26 seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is 27 likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips 28 in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 2 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). 3 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary 4 injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before 5 it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 6 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 7 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or 8 controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective 9 relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which 10 requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary 11 to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the 12 violation of the Federal right.” 13 Plaintiff has requested a court order prohibiting officials at Corcoran State Prison from 14 illegally confining him in administrative segregation. At the time Plaintiff filed the complaint for 15 this action, he was in custody at Corcoran State Prison. However, according to Plaintiff’s address 16 of record at the Court, Plaintiff is no longer in custody at Corcoran State Prison and is now housed 17 at Pelican Bay State Prison.1 Because Plaintiff is no longer subjected to the conditions at Corcoran 18 State Prison with regard to confinement in administrative segregation, his motion for a court order 19 prohibiting such action is moot. 20 III. 21 22 RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed March 11, 2010, be DENIED as moot. 23 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) 25 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written 26 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 27 1 28 On April 5, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address, changing his address from Corcoran State Prison to Pelican Bay State Prison. (Doc. 6.) 2 1 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 2 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 3 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij December 16, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 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.