(PC) Ellington v. Clark et al, No. 1:2009cv02141 - Document 51 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Plaintiff's Motions For Preliminary Injunction Be Denied, (ECF No. 38 , 40 , 44 , 46 ), Objections Due Within Twenty Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 8/2/2010. F&R's referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 8/26/2010. (Scrivner, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Ellington v. Clark et al Doc. 51 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 MARCUS RUBEN ELLINGTON, CASE NO. 1:09-CV-02141-AWI-DLB PC 9 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE DENIED 10 Plaintiff, v. 11 CLARK, et al., (ECF NOS. 38, 40, 44, 46) 12 Defendants. 13 / OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS 14 15 Findings and Recommendations 16 I. Background 17 Plaintiff Marcus Ruben Ellington (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the 18 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Pending before the Court 19 are four motions for preliminary injunction, filed June 18, 2010, June 21, 2010, July 6, 2010, and 20 July 13, 2010. 21 II. June 18, 2010 Motion 22 On June 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order and 23 preliminary injunction pursuant to the American with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. 24 (Pl.’s Mot. Prelim Inj., ECF No. 38.) The Court has previously addressed issues of injunctive 25 relief pursuant to the ADA and RA filed in this actions. (Findings and Recommendations, dated 26 March 1, 2010, ECF No. 15; Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations, dated March 31, 27 2010, ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff is effectively seeking enforcement of the Armstrong Remedial Plan 28 (“ARP”), a settlement agreement between the CDCR and inmates regarding ADA claims and 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 injunctive relief, which is still in effect and applicable to Plaintiff. Plaintiff appears to be 2 attempting to circumvent the settlement agreement by omitting any reference to it. Omission of 3 reference to the ARP does not make the ARP inapplicable. Accordingly, the undersigned 4 recommends that this motion be denied. 5 III. June 21, 2010 Motion 6 Plaintiff contends that he has no ability to access the courts. Plaintiff was ordered to 7 submit copies of the complaint to the Court for service of process. Plaintiff contends that 8 without a walker, he cannot go to the law library to make copies. However, on July 16, 2010, 9 Plaintiff submitted the necessary documents for service of process. Accordingly, the undersigned 10 recommends that this motion be denied as moot. 11 IV. July 6, 2010 Motion 12 Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison, contends that he is 13 being transferred to Salinas Valley State Prison and Corcoran State Prison in a retaliatory 14 manner. “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed 15 on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that 16 the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. 17 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (citations omitted). 18 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court 19 must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 20 102, (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, 21 Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 47 (1982). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, 22 it has no power to hear the matter in question. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102. Thus, “[a] federal court 23 may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter 24 jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the 25 court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). 26 This action concerns denial of accommodations pursuant to the ADA and violation of the 27 Eighth Amendment. Retaliation is not a claim before the Court. It is also unclear which 28 individuals are responsible for this alleged retaliatory transfer. Accordingly, the Court lacks 2 1 personal jurisdiction in this action to impose preliminary injunction on parties not before the 2 Court, and lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a retaliation claim in this action. The 3 undersigned recommends that this motion be denied. 4 V. July 13, 2010 Motion 5 This motion is entitled “Addendum to Plaintiff’s current motion for [TRO] and 6 preliminary injunction in opposition to the Magistrate Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff 7 contends that all Defendants are violating the ADA and Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. 8 Plaintiff is re-arguing his objections with the undersigned’s Findings and Recommendations 9 screening Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. The United States District Judge assigned to this 10 action will rule on Plaintiff’s objections in due course. Accordingly, the undersigned 11 recommends that this motion be denied. 12 VI. Conclusion and Recommendation 13 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions for 14 preliminary injunctive relief, filed June 18, 2010, June 21, 2010, July 6, 2010, and July 13, 2010 15 be DENIED. 16 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 17 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty 18 (20) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file 19 written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 20 Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file 21 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. 22 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a August 2, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
