(PC) Birdsall v. James, No. 1:2014cv01738 - Document 34 (E.D. Cal. 2017)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's Motion to Dispense with the requirement of security and Motion for a preliminary injunction 22 , be DENIED re 22 MOTION to Dispense With the Requirement of Security filed by William Birdsall ; referred to Judge Drozd,signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/5/17. Objections to F&R due by 12/26/2017 (Martin-Gill, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM BIRDSALL, 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING MOTION TO DISPENSE WITH REQUIREMENT OF SECURITY AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Defendant. 13 14 Case No. 1:14-cv-01738-DAD-BAM (PC) (ECF No. 22) v. D. JAMES, 15 16 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 17 18 Plaintiff William Birdsall (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently proceeds 20 on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendant James for violation of Plaintiff’s due 21 process rights. (ECF No. 18.) 22 I. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 23 On September 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to dispense with the requirement of 24 security and a motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 22.) Defendant did not file an 25 opposition, and the deadline to file a response has expired. The Court construes the filing as a 26 motion for preliminary injunction, and the motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction to remove the January 5, 2014 Rules Violation 2 Report from his C-file, restore his credits, and have his points corrected.1 Plaintiff states he was 3 not given a proper hearing and his due process rights were violated by the defendant, resulting in 4 Plaintiff’s placement in restricted housing, forfeit of 365 days of good time, and more disciplinary 5 points. Plaintiff states that with the grant of this preliminary injunction during the pendency of 6 this action, he will no longer have to live in a more restricted prison. 7 Plaintiff argues that he is suffering irreparable injury because he is being forced to live in 8 a more restrictive prison and he has lost credits and other privileges afforded for being write up 9 free. Plaintiff further states that the Defendant will not be harmed by the removal of the RVR 10 from his C-file, the public interest is best served when all persons, including prisoners, enjoy the 11 constitutional rights afforded to them, and he is likely to succeed because the Defendant clearly 12 denied Plaintiff of his rights. In his affidavit in support of the motion, Plaintiff states that he was 13 found wrongfully guilty of the RVR, when the evidence produced should have freed Plaintiff of 14 the charges. 15 With his motion for preliminary injunction, Plaintiff also filed a motion to dispense with 16 the requirement of security in this matter. Plaintiff argues that he has been granted leave to 17 proceed in forma pauperis, Defendant will not be required to expend money to comply with the 18 preliminary injunction requested, and the ends of justice will be served if Plaintiff is not required 19 to post security. 20 II. Legal Standard 21 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 22 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 23 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 24 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 25 1 26 27 28 The Court notes, without deciding, that the relief sought in the instant motion may be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), also known as the favorable termination rule. But see Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 929 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (“If the invalidity of the disciplinary proceedings, and therefore the restoration of good-time credits, would not necessarily affect the length of time to be served, then the claim falls outside the scope of habeas and may be brought in § 1983.”) 2 1 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction 2 may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation 3 omitted). 4 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 5 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 6 have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); 7 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 8 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no 9 power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 10 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find 11 the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation 12 of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the 13 Federal right.” 14 Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 15 officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. 16 United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties 17 in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 18 U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 19 III. Discussion 20 “A court has no power to adjudicate a personal claim or obligation unless it has 21 jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 22 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969); SEC v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1138–39 (9th Cir. 2007). This action 23 proceeds against Defendant James for an alleged violation of Plaintiff’s due process rights. In his 24 motion, Plaintiff seeks an injunction directing “prison officials” to remove a Rules Violation 25 Report from his C-File. The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over 26 prison officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield 27 v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the 28 parties in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. 3 1 2 Summers, 555 U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. To the extent Plaintiff seeks transfer to a different facility, Plaintiff is cautioned that “an 3 inmate has no justifiable expectation that he will be incarcerated in any particular prison within a 4 State, [and] he has no justifiable expectation that he will be incarcerated in any particular State.” 5 Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983). 6 IV. Conclusion and Recommendation 7 Having considered Plaintiff’s moving papers and supporting declaration and exhibits, IT 8 IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion to dispense with the requirement of 9 security and motion for a preliminary injunction, (ECF No. 22), be DENIED. 10 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 11 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 12 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may 13 file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 14 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file 15 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the 16 magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 17 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara December 5, 2017 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
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.
