(PC) Wolinski v. Junious et al, No. 1:2010cv02139 - Document 37 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Plaintiff's Motions 18 , 27 , & 28 , Construed as Motions For Preliminary Injunction, Be Denied, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 11/29/2011, referred to Judge Ishii. Objections Due Within 21 Days. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF

(PC) Wolinski v. Junious et al Doc. 37 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 KRZYSZTOF F. WOLINSKI, CASE NO. 1:10-CV-02139-AWI-DLB PC 6 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS, CONSTRUED AS MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, BE DENIED 7 v. 8 MAURICE JUNIOUS, et al., 9 Defendants. (DOCS. 18, 27, 28) 10 / OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 21 DAYS 11 12 Plaintiff Krzysztof F. Wolinski (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 13 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 14 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court 15 are: 1) Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, filed May 24, 2011, 2) Plaintiff’s motion for 16 an order to transfer Plaintiff to another facility with accessible law library, filed July 25, 2011, 17 and 3) Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing the facility LTA to return Plaintiff’s “suppressed 18 papers”, filed July 25, 2011. Docs. 18, 27, 28. The Court construes the latter motions as ones for 19 preliminary injunction. 20 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on 21 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 22 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. 23 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (citations omitted). The 24 purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo or to prevent irreparable 25 injury pending the resolution of the underlying claim. Sierra On-line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, 26 Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). 27 28 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 2 464, 471 (1982). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no 3 power to hear the matter in question. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102. Thus, “[a] federal court may issue 4 an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction 5 over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” 6 Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). 7 Plaintiff moves for an order enjoining correctional officers Barton, Shiplet, Vegas, 8 Brown, and others at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) from harassing Plaintiff, taking his 9 legal papers, denying him the ability to mail documents, and denying access to the law library at 10 HDSP. Doc. 18. Plaintiff moves for an order requiring the warden of HDSP to transfer Plaintiff 11 to another facility within the prison for law library access. Doc. 27. Plaintiff also moves for an 12 order directing facility LTA Miller, who works at HDSP, to return Plaintiff’s legal documents, 13 which LTA Miller took from Plaintiff. Doc. 28. None of the named HDSP officials are parties 14 to this action. Plaintiff’s claims in this case concerned actions at North Kern State Prison and 15 California State Prison - Sacramento. The Court lacks jurisdiction over officials at HDSP. 16 17 18 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief, filed July 25, 2011, should be DENIED. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 19 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty- 20 one (21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file 21 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 22 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 23 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 24 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a November 29, 2011 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.