(PC) Doe v. Yates et al, No. 1:2008cv01219 - Document 63 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that Plaintiff's 56 Requests for Injunctive Relief be Denied, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 12/2/2009. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 12/16/2009. (Sondheim, M)

Download PDF

(PC) Doe v. Yates et al Doc. 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 J. DOE, CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01219-LJO-DLB (PC) 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 11 v. 12 SCHWARZENEGGER, et. al, (Doc. 56) 13 14 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS Defendants. / 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 30, 2009, Plaintiff filed a request with the Court to have Terry 18 Kupers, a psychiatrist, interview Plaintiff on December 18 and provide a psychological evaluation. 19 Plaintiff also requests the Court to order the California Department of Corrections and 20 Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to turn over Plaintiff’s medical and mental health records to Dr. Kupers. 21 Plaintiff’s requests will be treated as a request for injunctive relief. 22 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on 23 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 24 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. 25 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (citations omitted). The 26 purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo or to prevent irreparable 27 injury pending the resolution of the underlying claim. Sierra On-line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, 28 Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court 2 must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 3 102, 103 S. Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation 4 of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S. Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of 5 Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or 6 controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Thus, “[a] federal court 7 may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter 8 jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the 9 court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). 10 The Court does not find that Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not 11 issue an order in favor of Plaintiff’s request. CDCR is also not a party to this litigation, and thus 12 the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue such an order at this time. It is unclear why Plaintiff would 13 need a court order for a psychiatrist to interview Plaintiff free of charge. Plaintiff is responsible 14 for arranging interviews with potential witnesses, and does not appear to need judicial 15 intervention for this interview to occur. Plaintiff demonstrates no good cause for Plaintiff’s 16 requests to be granted. 17 18 19 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief, filed on November 30, 2009, should be DENIED without prejudice. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 20 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within ten 21 (10) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the plaintiff may file 22 written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 23 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 24 the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 25 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Dated: 3b142a December 2, 2009 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.