(PC) Abreu v. Caviness et al, No. 1:2015cv01085 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Deny Plaintiff's 14 Request for Injunctive Relief for Lack of Jurisdiction; ORDER Granting Extension of Time for Plaintiff to File a Certified Copy of his Trust Account Statements signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/05/2015. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 12/10/2015.(Flores, E)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAI EDMUND FRED ABREU, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 v. Case No. 1:15-cv-01085-AWI-JLT (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION CAVINESS, et al., (Doc. 14) Defendants. 30-DAY DEADLINE ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE A CERTIFIED COPY OF HIS TRUST ACCOUNT STATEMENTS (Doc. 9) 60-DAY DEADLINE 20 21 On August 26, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis 22 and allowed him sixty days to submit a certified copy of his trust account statement for the six- 23 month period immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint. (Doc. 9.) On November 2, 24 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion describing his multiple, yet unfruitful, efforts to obtain a certified 25 copy of his trust account statement and requesting an order compelling prison staff to provide it to 26 him. (Doc. 14.) The Court construes Plaintiff's motion as seeking injunctive relief. 27 28 Notably, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that, as a preliminary matter, 1 1 it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 2 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 3 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no 4 power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 5 U.S.C. ' 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find 6 the Arelief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation 7 of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the 8 Federal right.@ 9 Moreover, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 10 officials in general or over the conditions of Plaintiff=s confinement. Summers v. Earth Island 11 Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 12 2010). Rather, the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the cognizable 13 legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 492-93; Mayfield, 599 14 F.3d at 969. 15 In his motion, Plaintiff does not seek injunctive relief against any of the Defendants 16 named in this action. AA federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal 17 jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to 18 determine the rights of persons not before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration 19 Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Thus, the Court must deny 20 Plaintiff=s motion because it lacks jurisdiction over those in the Inmate Trust Office who, he 21 reports, have failed to provide him certified copies of his trust account. 22 The seriousness of accusations concerning obstructing Plaintiff’s access to certified copies 23 of his trust account to pursue this action cannot and do not overcome what is a jurisdictional bar. 24 Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 103-04 (A[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability 25 constitutes the core of Article III=s case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking 26 federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence.@). This motion is simply not the 27 28 2 1 proper vehicle for conveyance of the relief Plaintiff seeks. 1 2 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 3 Based upon the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS: 4 1. 5 6 That Plaintiff=s motion for injunctive relief, filed November 2, 2015 (Doc. 14), be DENIED for lack of jurisdiction; 2. That the Clerk’s Office be directed to forward a copy of this order and Plaintiff's 7 motion to the Warden's office and to Litigation Coordinator at High Desert State Prison via 8 facsimile transfer that they might be made aware of Plaintiff's safety concerns. 9 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 10 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within 30 11 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 12 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to Magistrate Judge=s 13 Findings and Recommendations.@ Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 14 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court=s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 15 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 ORDER 1. Plaintiff's deadline to submit a certified copy of his trust account for the six month 18 period immediately preceding his filing of this action is extend to 60 days from the date of service 19 of this order. 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 5, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff=s motion also fails to make the requisite showing, supported by admissible evidence, to obtain a preliminary injunction. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20-4, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008). However, it is unnecessary to reach the merits of Plaintiff=s motions in light of the fact that the jurisdictional issue is fatal to his requests for relief. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493, 129 S.Ct. at 1149; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 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.