(PC) Robinson v. Davey et al, No. 1:2017cv01524 - Document 37 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending That Plaintiff's 36 Request for Preliminary Injunctive Relief be Denied, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/5/18. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
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 v. DAVE DAVEY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 1:17-cv-01524-DAD-GSA (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED (ECF No. 36.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Anthony L. Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 20 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 21 commencing this action on November 15, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) 22 On December 3, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which is 23 now before the court. (ECF No. 36.) 24 II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 25 AA plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed 26 on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, 27 that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.@ 28 Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Counsel, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 19, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008). 1 1 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff 2 is entitled to relief. Id. at 21 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). 3 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 4 preliminary injunctive relief, the court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, 5 it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 6 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of 7 Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the court does not 8 have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. 9 Analysis 10 Plaintiff requests the court to order Defendants to return Plaintiff’s legal property to him 11 at Corcoran State Prison, where Plaintiff is currently incarcerated. 1 Plaintiff believes that his 12 property was sent to Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP) on November 19, 2018, because 13 Plaintiff was scheduled to be transferred to SVSP on that date, but Plaintiff has learned that he 14 is not going to be transferred. Plaintiff asserts that he needs his property to respond to the 15 court’s order directing him to either amend the complaint or notify the court that he wishes to 16 proceed on the claims found cognizable by the court. 17 Plaintiff brings this § 1983 case against prison officials at Corcoran State Prison for 18 events allegedly occurring there in 2013. Plaintiff now requests a court order compelling 19 prison officials at Corcoran State Prison to act on his behalf. 20 any of the claims in this case, which is based upon past events occurring in 2013. Moreover, 21 the court has no jurisdiction over any of the defendants in this case because none of the 22 defendants have appeared in this case. “A federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has 23 personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not 24 attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States 25 Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). Such an order would not remedy Further, the court recognizes that 26 27 Plaintiff also requests copies of his complaint and the court’s order directing him to either amend the complaint or notify the court that he wishes to proceed on the claims found cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 36 at 5:12-15.) By separate order, this request shall be granted. 1 28 2 1 prison administrators “should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and 2 execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order 3 and discipline and to maintain institutional security.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321- 4 322 (1986) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1970). 5 6 7 8 Accordingly, Plaintiff=s request for a preliminary injunction must be denied. III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed on December 3, 2018, be DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 11 (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 12 written objections with the court. 13 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 14 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 15 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 16 (9th Cir. 1991)). Such a document should be captioned "Objections to 17 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 5, 2018 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3