-SMS (PC) Ackley v. Carroll et al, No. 1:2006cv00771 - Document 65 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief, filed September 9, 2011, be DENIED, with Prejudice, for Lack of Jurisdiction; re 1 Complaint, filed by Donald J. Ackley ; referred to Judge Ishii, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 09/27/2011. Objections to F&R due by 10/31/2011 (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
-SMS (PC) Ackley v. Carroll et al Doc. 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DONALD J. ACKLEY, 10 11 12 13 CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00771-AWI-SMS PC Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A COURT ORDER v. D. CARROLL, et al., OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Donald J. Ackley (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 16 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following Defendants’ motion for 17 summary judgment, this action is proceeding against Defendant Wright for excessive force and 18 Defendant Carroll for retaliation. On September 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion stating he had been 19 transferred to the California Medical Facility at Vacaville and requesting a court order directing that 20 his legal property be returned to him or protected. 21 For each form of relief sought in federal court, Plaintiff must establish standing. Mayfield 22 v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.denied, 131 S. Ct. 503 (2010). This requires 23 Plaintiff to “show that he is under threat of suffering ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and 24 particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be 25 fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial 26 decision will prevent or redress the injury.” Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 129 S. Ct. 1142, 1149 27 (2009) (citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969 (citation omitted). 28 In addition, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 which provides in relevant part, “[p]rospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison 2 conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a 3 particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless 4 the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the 5 violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of 6 the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). 7 The case or controversy requirement cannot be met in light of the fact that the issue Plaintiff 8 seeks to remedy in his motion bears no relation to the claims that prison guards used excessive force 9 or retaliated against him. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102; 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); also Summers, 129 10 S. Ct. at 1148-49; Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 102-04, 107 (1998). Because 11 the case-or-controversy requirement cannot be met, the pendency of this action provides no basis 12 upon which to award Plaintiff the requested injunctive relief. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 102-103. 13 14 Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, filed September 9, 2011, be DENIED, with prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction. 15 It is ordered that this finding and recommendation be submitted to the United States District 16 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 17 THIRTY (30) DAYS after being served with the finding and recommendation, Plaintiff may file 18 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 19 Judge’s Finding and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 20 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 21 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: icido3 September 27, 2011 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 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.