(PC) Hamilton v. Wasco State Prison, et al., No. 1:2015cv00661 - Document 61 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 55 Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief be DENIED re 43 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/7/2016. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALBERT J. HAMILTON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 CLENDEHEN, 15 Defendant. 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:15-cv-00661-AWI-SAB (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT [ECF No. 55] Plaintiff Albert J. Hamilton is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of 19 the United States Magistrate Judge on May 28, 2015. Local Rule 302. 20 21 22 This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for failure to protect against Defendant Clendehen. On July 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend “without having to file CDC exhaust before 23 out of state transfer.” Plaintiff requests that this Court issue an order preventing his transfer to an out 24 of state prison while his inmate appeals and court cases are pending review. Plaintiff contends his 25 transfer is vindictive and retaliatory, and detrimental to his medical condition. Plaintiff essentially 26 seeks a preliminary injunction preventing his transfer to an out of state prison, and the Court construes 27 Plaintiff’s motion as such a request. 28 1 1 The purpose of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction is to preserve the 2 status quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to 3 intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of 4 Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction [or 5 temporary restraining order] must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely 6 to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 7 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 8 Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 9 “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be 10 granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” 11 Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). A 12 party seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction simply cannot prevail when that 13 motion is unsupported by evidence. Mazurek v. 14 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary 15 injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it 16 an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 102 (1983); Valley Forge 17 Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If 18 the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in 19 question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the 20 Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly 21 drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least 22 intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 23 Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief that is not narrowly drawn to correct the violation of his 24 rights at issue in this action. The constitutional and statutory requirements applicable to equitable 25 relief preclude Plaintiff from entitlement to generalized relief such an order directing that prison 26 officials not transfer Plaintiff to an out of state prison. The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties 27 before it in this action and to Plaintiff’s claim for damages arising from an incident of alleged failure 28 to protect on September 7, 2014. See, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 1032 1 04 (1998) (“[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article 2 III’s case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of 3 establishing its existence.”) (citation omitted); American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Masto, 4 670 F.3d 1046, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[F]ederal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases 5 or controversies.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The equitable relief requested 6 herein is not sufficiently related to Plaintiff’s underlying legal claims to satisfy the jurisdictional 7 requirements that apply to federal courts. Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be 8 9 denied. 10 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 11 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after 12 being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written objections with the 13 Court. 14 Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 15 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) 16 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: 20 November 7, 2016 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.