(PC) Martin v. Vasquez et al, No. 1:2009cv01081 - Document 27 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's Request for Injunctive Relief be Denied without Prejudice; Objections, if any, Due within 20 Days signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 12/14/2009. Referred to Judge Oliver W. Wanger. Objections to F&R due by 1/7/2010. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Martin v. Vasquez et al Doc. 27 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 LANCE R. MARTIN, 9 10 Case No. 1:09-cv-01081-OWW-DLB (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. 11 L. M. VASQUEZ, et al., (Doc. 21) 12 13 Defendants. / OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 20 DAYS 14 15 Plaintiff Lance R. Martin (“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. On December 11, 2009, 17 Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction with the Court. (Doc. 21.) 18 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on 19 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 20 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. 21 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (citations omitted). 22 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court 23 must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 24 102, 103 S. Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of 25 Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S. Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of Los 26 Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or 27 controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Thus, “[a] federal court 28 may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the 2 court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). 3 Plaintiff seeks medical care from two physicians at Pleasant Valley State Prison, where 4 Plaintiff currently is incarcerated. These unnamed physicians are not parties to this suit. 5 Plaintiff’s suit is only against Defendant Vasquez, a physician at Kern Valley State Prison, where 6 Plaintiff was previously incarcerated. The Court thus lacks jurisdiction to issue an injunction. 7 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s request for injunctive 8 relief, filed on December 11, 2009, should be denied without prejudice. 9 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 10 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 11 twenty (20) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may 12 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 13 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 14 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 15 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a December 14, 2009 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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.
