(PC) Lamon v. Adams et al, No. 1:2009cv00205 - Document 291 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Deny Plaintiff's 287 Motion Requesting Access to Case Files and Legal Materials for Lack of Jurisdiction signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/6/2015. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due by 11/9/2015. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BARRY LOUIS LAMON, Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 ADAMS, et al., 15 16 17 Defendants. Case No.: 1:09-cv-00205-LJO-JLT (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION REQUESTING ACCESS TO CASE FILES AND LEGAL MATERIALS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION (Doc. 287) 30-DAY DEADLINE Barry Louis Lamon, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendants used 19 excessive force when they forced him to take his medication. On September 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a 20 motion seeking assistance from the Court to gain access to his case files and materials. (Doc. 287.) 21 This motion is construed as a motion seeking injunctive relief. 22 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary 23 injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it 24 an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 25 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 26 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to 27 hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. ' 28 1 1 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the Arelief 2 [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal 3 right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.@ 4 Regardless, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 5 officials in general or over Plaintiff=s mail issues. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 6 492-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court=s jurisdiction 7 is limited to the parties in this action and to the cognizable legal claims upon which this action is 8 proceeding. Summers, 129 S.Ct. at 1148-49; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 9 Plaintiff does not seek the temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction against 10 any of the Defendants who remain in this action. AA federal court may issue an injunction if it has 11 personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt 12 to determine the rights of persons not before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 13 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Thus, Plaintiff=s motion must be denied for lack 14 of jurisdiction over "Correctional Officer Personnel at California State Prison in Tehachapi, County of 15 Kern, California." (See Doc. 287.) 16 This action cannot provide redress for the difficulties Plaintiff is having accessing his case files 17 and materials. The issue is not that Plaintiff=s allegations are not serious, or that Plaintiff is not entitled 18 to relief if sought in the proper forum. The seriousness of Plaintiff=s accusations concerning his 19 inability to access his case files and materials cannot and do not overcome what is a jurisdictional bar. 20 Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 103-04 (A[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes 21 the core of Article III=s case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction 22 bears the burden of establishing its existence.@) This action is simply not the proper vehicle for 23 conveyance of the relief Plaintiff seeks. 24 25 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff=s motion to assist him in accessing his case files and materials, filed September 21, 2015 (Doc. 287), be denied. 26 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 30 days after 28 being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections with 2 1 the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 2 Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 3 may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 4 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 5 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 6, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 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.
