(PC)Armstrong v. Agurerralde et al, No. 1:2012cv01622 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 13 Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction be DENIED re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/14/2013. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRADY K. ARMSTRONG, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. J. AGUERERRALDE, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 19 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:12-cv-01622-LJO-SAB (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [ECF No. 13] Plaintiff Brady K. Armstrong is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a court order to direct the Warden at 20 Corcoran State Prison to stop inferring with Plaintiff’s legal documents. The Court construes 21 Plaintiff’s motion as a request for a preliminary injunction. 22 I. 23 DISCUSSION 24 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. 25 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). “A 26 plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that 27 he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities 28 tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An 1 1 injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 2 (citation omitted). 3 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary 4 injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it 5 an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); 6 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 7 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, 8 it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. “[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and 9 redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, and the party 10 invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a 11 Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998). Requests for prospective relief are further 12 limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the 13 Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the 14 violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the 15 Federal right.” 16 In an order issued concurrently herewith, the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with 17 leave to amend. As a consequence, there is no actual case or controversy before the Court at this time. 18 Therefore, the Court lacks the jurisdiction to issue the orders sought by Plaintiff. Summers v. Earth 19 Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493,129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009); Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 20 1119 (9th Cir. 2009). 21 deficiencies outlined in the order, Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief that is not narrowly drawn to 22 correct the violation of his rights at issue in this action. The constitutional and statutory requirements 23 applicable to equitable relief preclude Plaintiff from entitlement to generalized relief such an order 24 prohibiting the defendants from interfering with his legal documents. Accordingly, even if Plaintiff 25 files an amended complaint, the equitable relief requested herein is not sufficiently related to 26 Plaintiff’s underlying legal claims to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements that apply to federal courts. 27 Moreover, the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint occurred while he was housed at Pleasant 28 Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California, and Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief for actions against Further, assuming Plaintiff’s files an amended complaint and cures the 2 1 prison officials which occurred at California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility in Corcoran 2 State Prison. Plaintiff lacks standing to seek relief directed at remedying his current conditions of 3 confinement at Corcoran State Prison. Zenith Radio Corp v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 4 (1969). 5 II. 6 RECOMMENDATION 7 8 9 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction be DENIED. This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District Court 10 Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of 11 Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days 12 after being served with a copy, Plaintiff may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on 13 all parties. Such a document should be captioned AObjections to Magistrate Judge=s Findings and 14 Recommendation.@ The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge=s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 15 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 16 waive the right to appeal the District Court=s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 14, 2013 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.