(PC) Hill v. Katavich et al, No. 1:2015cv00631 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss the Action for Plaintiff's Failure to Obey Court Order and to Deny Plaintiff's Requests for Injunctive Relief Via Transfer to Another Facility, referred to Judge O'Neill, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/20/2015. Objections to F&R Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TONY HILL, 12 13 14 15 Case No. 1:15-cv-00631-LJO-JLT (PC) Plaintiff, v. KATAVICH, et al., Defendants. (Docs. 3, 8-11) 16 30-DAY DEADLINE 17 18 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS THE ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER and TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF VIA TRANSFER TO ANOTHER FACILITY Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on April 21, 2015. On that same date, he filed 19 an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2.) On April 29, 2015, a Findings and 20 Recommendation issued to deny Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3.) 21 Plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. 4.) On June 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed for injunctive relief, asking 22 to be transferred to another facility. (Doc. 9.) On July 6, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff's 23 application to proceed in forma pauperis and he was ordered to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full 24 within thirty days. (Docs. 3, 10.) On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff renewed his request for injunctive 25 relief. (Doc. 11.) More than thirty days have passed from the order directing Plaintiff to pay the 26 filing fee in full and he has failed to do so. 27 28 A civil action may not proceed absent the submission of either the filing fee or a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. Though Plaintiff 1 1 submitted a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, it was denied since Plaintiff had 2 more than three strikes against him and did not meet the imminent danger of serious physical 3 exception per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) at the time this action was filed. (See Docs. 3, 10.) Based on 4 Plaintiff’s ineligibility to proceed in forma pauperis and his failure to comply with the Court’s 5 order to pay the filing fee in full, dismissal of this action is appropriate. In re 6 Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006); 7 Local Rule 110. 8 Further, Plaintiff's requests for transfer to another facility should be denied. Federal 9 courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary injunctive 10 relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it an 11 actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge 12 Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 13 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear 14 the matter in question. Id. In light of Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee, the Court has not 15 screened Plaintiff=s Complaint and does not know whether he states cognizable claims upon 16 which to have an actual case or controversy before the Court. 17 On the other hand, the face of the motion does not appear to be within this Court’s 18 authority. Plaintiff does not seek the temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction 19 against any of the Defendants whom he has named in this action. Notably, the pendency of this 20 action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general. Summers v. Earth 21 Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th 22 Cir. 2010). The Court=s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the cognizable 23 legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 129 S.Ct. at 1148-49; Mayfield, 599 24 F.3d at 969. AA federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties 25 and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of 26 persons not before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 27 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Thus, Plaintiff=s motion would be denied for lack of 28 jurisdiction over CSP officials and/or CDCR officials whom Plaintiff desires this Court compel 2 1 2 transfer him to another facility. Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1. 3 4 $400.00 filing fee; and 2. 5 6 this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to pay the that Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief (Docs. 9, 11) be DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 7 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 30 8 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 9 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 10 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 11 specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 12 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 20, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.