(PC) Wiseman v. Cate, et al., No. 1:2014cv00831 - Document 72 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/20/2016 recommending that 71 MOTION for injunctive relief be denied. Referred to Judge Dale A Drozd; Objections to F&R due by 1/23/2017. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHESTER RAY WISEMAN, 12 13 Plaintiff, v. 14 MATTHEW CATE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:14-cv-00831-DAD-SAB (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED Plaintiff Chester Ray Wiseman is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff filed a motion for the return of his legal property, filed November 17, 2016. 21 I. 22 DISCUSSION 23 The purpose of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction is to preserve the 24 status quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to 25 intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of 26 Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction [or 27 temporary restraining order] must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely 28 to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 1 1 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 2 Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be 3 4 granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” 5 Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). A 6 party seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction simply cannot prevail when that 7 motion is unsupported by evidence. Mazurek v. 8 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary 9 injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it 10 an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 102 (1983); Valley Forge 11 Christian Coll. V. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If 12 the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in 13 question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the 14 Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly 15 drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least 16 intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 17 In this case, Plaintiff seeks a court order directing prison officials to return his legal property to 18 him; however, the Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and the undersigned issued 19 Findings and Recommendations to grant Defendants’ motion on December 7, 2015, with leave to 20 amend as to his claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.1 21 The pendency of this case does not provide Plaintiff with standing to seek relief directed at 22 remedying his current conditions of confinement, which are occurring at a different prison and which 23 involve different prison employees. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009) 24 (citation omitted); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992); Mayfield v. United 25 States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief that is not narrowly 26 drawn to correct the violation of his rights at issue in this action. The constitutional and statutory 27 28 1 The Findings and Recommendations have not yet been addressed by the assigned District Judge. 2 1 requirements applicable to equitable relief preclude Plaintiff from entitlement to generalized relief 2 such an order directing that prison officials allow Plaintiff to receive his legal property. The equitable 3 relief requested herein is not sufficiently related to Plaintiff’s underlying legal claims to satisfy the 4 jurisdictional requirements that apply to federal courts. Additionally, in the Court=s experience, some 5 disruption with property access occurs following a transfer between prisons, and absent the existence 6 of exceptional circumstances not present here, the Court will not intervene in the day-to-day 7 management of prisons. See e.g., Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003) (prison officials 8 entitled to substantial deference); Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482-83 (1995) (disapproving the 9 involvement of federal courts in the day-to-day-management of prisons). Moreover, Plaintiff may not 10 seek injunctive relief against an individual who is not a party to the instant action. “A federal court 11 may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction 12 over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. 13 United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Accordingly, 14 Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief must be denied. 15 II. 16 RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for 17 18 injunctive relief be DENIED. 19 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 20 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days 21 after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written objections 22 with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 23 Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 3 1 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) 2 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: 7 December 20, 2016 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 4
]]>
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.
