-DLB (PC) Cortinas v. Lockwood et al, No. 1:2010cv02270 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 7 Plaintiff's Motion, Construed as a Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, filed January 4, 2011, Should be DENIED re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 6/3/2011. Referred to Judge Wanger. Objections to F&R due within eighteen (18) days. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF

-DLB (PC) Cortinas v. Lockwood et al Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 10 11 12 CASE NO. 1:10-CV-02270-OWW-DLB PC LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS, Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION BE DENIED (DOC. 7) v. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN EIGHTEEN (18) DAYS TIMOTHY LOCKWOOD, et al., Defendants. 13 / 14 15 16 Findings And Recommendations Plaintiff Larry William Cortinas (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 17 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court 19 is Plaintiff’s motion requesting the return of his typewriter and supplies, filed January 4, 2011. 20 Doc. 7. The Court construes the motion as one for preliminary injunctive relief. 21 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on 22 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 23 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. 24 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (citations omitted). The 25 purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo or to prevent irreparable 26 injury pending the resolution of the underlying claim. Sierra On-line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, 27 Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). 28 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 2 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 3 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it 4 has no power to hear the matter in question. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102. Thus, “[a] federal court 5 may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter 6 jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the 7 court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). 8 Here, Plaintiff contends that he is in ad-seg (administrative segregation) and is without 9 access to his typewriter and legal supplies. Access to his typewriter and legal supplies is not an 10 actual case or controversy before the Court in this action. City of Los Angeles, 461 U.S. at 102; 11 see Pl.’s Compl., Doc. 1. Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff’s motion for 12 preliminary injunctive relief. 13 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s 14 motion, construed as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed January 4, 2011, should be 15 DENIED. 16 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 17 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within eighteen (18) 18 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 19 objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 20 Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 21 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. 22 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 3, 2011 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.