(PC) Estevez v. Lunsford et al, No. 1:2010cv01444 - Document 22 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 1/11/2011 recommending 16 MOTION for preliminary injunction be DENIED. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 2/14/2011. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF

(PC) Estevez v. Lunsford et al Doc. 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JESUS ESTEVEZ, 10 11 12 13 CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01444-AWI-GBC (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION v. ERIC LUNSFORD, et al., (Doc. 16) Defendants. DEADLINE THIRTY DAYS / 14 15 Jesus Estevez (“Plaintiff’) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 16 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 14, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary 17 injunction requesting that officials at the High Dessert State Prison be required to provide him 18 expanded access to his legal materials and the law library. (Doc. 16.). Plaintiff is currently housed 19 at Salinas Valley State Prison. (Doc. 20). 20 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. 21 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff 22 seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is 23 likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips 24 in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An 25 injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 26 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). As a court of limited jurisdiction, the Court is bound by the 27 requirement that it has before it an actual case or controversy before considering a request for 28 preliminary injunctive relief. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). 2 Furthermore, the Court must have personal jurisdiction over the parties in order to issue an 3 injunction against any individual and the Court may not enjoin individuals who are not yet served 4 or before the court. Zepeda v. United States I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). 5 The pendency of this action does not provide a basis for Plaintiff to obtain a court order 6 directing he be provided with greater access to his legal materials or the law library. The Court has 7 jurisdiction over the parties and claims in this action. Jurisdiction does not extend to the issuance 8 of orders that will not remedy the claims at issue in this action. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 9 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th 10 Cir. 2006). Moreover, Plaintiff has made no showing that he is being prevented from accessing 11 specific legal documents that he has immediate need for at this stage in the litigation. Since the 12 allegations in Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief suggests a remedy by enjoining individuals that 13 are not a part of this action, the Court does not have jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief. See 14 Zepeda v. United States I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983); City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 15 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th 16 Cir. 2006). Moreover, as Plaintiff has been transferred after filing his request for injunctive relief, 17 his request is moot. 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 2 Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on September 14, 2010, be DENIED, with prejudice. 3 It is ordered that this finding and recommendation be submitted to the United States District 4 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 5 THIRTY (30) DAYS after being served with the finding and recommendation, Plaintiff may file 6 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 7 Judge’s Finding and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 8 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 9 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: 0jh02o January 11, 2011 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.