(PC) Verduzco v. Gipson et al, No. 1:2014cv01083 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's 21 Motion requesting an order directing the CDCR to stop collecting restitution payments be Denied ; referred to Judge Ishii, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/13/2016. Objections to F&R due (30-Day Deadline)(Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 RICARDO VERDUZCO, Plaintiff, 16 17 18 19 Case No. 1:14-cv-01083-AWI-SAB-PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED v. C. GIPSON, et al., (ECF NO. 21) Defendants. OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Plaintiff is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, filed June 9, 2016. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff seeks an order directing the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to temporarily stop collecting restitution fine funds from Plaintiff’s inmate trust account until the filing fee for this action is paid in full. Plaintiff indicates that, in 28 1 1 addition to the statutorily mandated twenty percent of Plaintiff’s monthly income mandated by 2 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), the CDCR is also collecting 55% of Plaintiff’s monthly income pursuant 3 to restitution ordered as a party of Plaintiff’s underlying criminal conviction in state court. 4 Plaintiff seeks an order directing the CDCR to collect only twenty percent of his monthly income 5 ordered by this Court, and temporarily suspend the collection of the restitution ordered by the 6 courts as a part of his underlying criminal conviction. 7 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court 8 must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 9 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, 10 Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before 11 it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102. Thus, “[a] federal 12 court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject 13 matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not 14 before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). 15 The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in 16 general. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 491-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United 17 States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in 18 this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 19 U.S. at 491-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 20 The CDCR is not named as a Defendant in this action, and the only viable claim in this 21 action is a due process and retaliation claim against an individual correctional lieutenant. The 22 Court does not, therefore, have jurisdiction to order the CDCR to stop collecting Plaintiff’s state 23 mandated restitution. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion requesting an 25 order directing the CDCR to stop collecting restitution payments be DENIED. 26 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 27 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. §636 (b)(1)(B). Within thirty 28 (30) days after being served with these Finding and Recommendations, the parties may file 2 1 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings 2 and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 3 specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.2d F.3d 4 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: October 13, 2016 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 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.