(PC) Robinson v. Davey et al, No. 1:2017cv01524 - Document 28 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that Plaintiff's Request for a Preliminary Injunction be Denied signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/17/2018. Referred to Judge Drozd; Objections to F&R due by 11/5/2018. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY L. ROBINSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 vs. DAVE DAVEY, et al., 15 Defendants. 1:17-cv-01524-DAD-GSA-PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE DENIED OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 16 17 18 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Anthony L. Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 21 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 22 commencing this action on November 15, 2017. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) 23 Plaintiff’s Complaint was unsigned. On May 22, 2018, the court issued an order 24 striking the Complaint for lack of signature and granted Plaintiff thirty days to submit a signed 25 complaint. (ECF No. 20.) On July 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint 26 bearing his signature. (ECF No. 24.) 27 28 In the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff requests a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 24 at 28 ¶58.) Plaintiff’s request is now before the court. 1 1 II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 2 AA plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed 3 on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, 4 that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.@ 5 Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Counsel, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 19, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008). 6 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff 7 is entitled to relief. Id. at 21 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). 8 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 9 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary 10 matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 11 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for 12 Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the 13 Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter 14 in question. Id. 15 Analysis 16 Plaintiff seeks a court order prohibiting Defendants from using pepper spray, banning 17 the use of pepper spray by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 18 stopping employees from turning a blind eye on the crime and misconduct of other employees, 19 and “exclude[ing] them from receiving retirement benefits.” ECF No. 24 at 28 ¶58.) 20 Plaintiff brings this case against prison officials at Corcoran State Prison for events 21 allegedly occurring in 2013 when Plaintiff was incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff 22 now requests a court order protecting him from present and future actions by prison officials at 23 Corcoran State Prison. Such an order would not remedy any of the claims in this case which is 24 based upon events occurring in 2013. Therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order 25 sought by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff=s request for a preliminary injunction must be denied. 26 III. 27 28 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief be DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. 2 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 3 (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 4 written objections with the court. 5 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 6 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 7 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 8 (9th Cir. 1991)). Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 9 10 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 17, 2018 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
