(PC) Gradford v. McDougall et al, No. 1:2017cv00201 - Document 31 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/19/2018 recommending that Plaintiff's 28 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief be denied. Referred to Judge Dale A Drozd; Objections to F&R's due within 14-Days. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM J. GRADFORD, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. MCDOUGALL, et al., 15 1:17-cv-00201-DAD-GSA-PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED (ECF No. 28.) Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS 16 17 18 19 20 21 I. BACKGROUND William J. Gradford (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with 22 Plaintiff’s initial Complaint, filed on February 13, 2017, against defendants Tiexiera and 23 McCarthy, deputies of the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department (“SCSD”), for retaliation in 24 25 26 27 violation of the First Amendment. (ECF No. 1.) On March 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed a request for a court order to stop unlawful conduct by deputies of the SCSD named in civil suits pending in this court, including defendants Tiexiera and McCarthy, upon Plaintiff’s release from state prison scheduled to occur on November 26, 28 1 1 2018. (ECF No. 28.) The court construes Plaintiff’s request as a motion for preliminary 2 injunctive relief. 3 II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 4 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” 5 Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) 6 (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely 7 to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 8 preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the 9 public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear 10 showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted). 11 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, in considering a request for 12 injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have 13 before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 14 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church 15 and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the Court does not have an 16 actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Lyons, 461 17 U.S. at 102; Valley Forge Christian Coll., 454 U.S. at 471. Thus, “[a] federal court may issue 18 an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter 19 jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the 20 court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). 21 Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the 22 Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is 23 narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, 24 and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 25 Discussion 26 Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, California, he 27 seeks a court order protecting him from unlawful conduct by Stanislaus County Sheriff’s 28 2 1 Department deputies upon his release from state prison which is scheduled to occur in 2 November of 2018. 3 The court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff because the order 4 requested by Plaintiff would not remedy any of the claims upon which this case proceeds. This 5 action is proceeding against defendants Tiexiera and McCarthy for retaliation based on events 6 occurring back in December 2016. Plaintiff now requests a court order protecting him from 7 present and future actions by defendants and other deputy sheriffs who are in other pending 8 actions. Because such an order would not remedy any of the claims in this case based upon 9 events occurring in December 2016, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by 10 Plaintiff, and Plaintiff=s motion must be denied. 11 III. 12 13 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on March 1, 2018, be DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 16 (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 17 written objections with the court. 18 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 19 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 20 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 21 (9th Cir. 1991)). Such a document should be captioned "Objections to 22 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 19, 2018 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.