(PC) Watkins v. Imlach, et al., No. 1:2018cv01007 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending that Plaintiff's 5 Request for Preliminary Injunctive Relief be Denied, and that Plaintiff be Granted an Extension of Time to File an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, If Needed, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/19/18. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Gonzalez, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 1:18-cv-01007-AWI-GSA (PC) RAYMOND CHAD WATKINS, Plaintiff, 9 10 v. 11 IMLACH, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED, AND THAT PLAINTIFF BE GRANTED AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, IF NEEDED (ECF No. 5.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 14 15 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 Raymond Chad Watkins (“Plaintiff”) is a jail inmate proceeding pro se in this civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this 19 action on July 26, 2018. (ECF No. 1.) On July 31, 2018, the court issued an order requiring 20 Plaintiff to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee for this 21 action, within forty-five days. 22 application or paid the filing fee. (ECF No. 3.) To date, Plaintiff has not submitted the 23 On August 15, 2018, plaintiff filed a document he titled “Petition for Writ of 24 Administrative Mandamus,” against the Tuolumne County Jail. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff’s 25 petition is now before the court. 26 II. PLAINTIFF’S PETITION 27 Plaintiff seeks a court order compelling jail officials to provide him with a copy of his 28 six-month cash account statement, which he asserts is necessary to proceed in a civil suit. 1 1 Plaintiff asserts that on multiple occasions while confined at the Tuolumne County Jail as a 2 pretrial detainee he has requested a copy of his six-month cash account statement, and jail 3 officials refused to grant his request and told him to stop requesting the information. Plaintiff 4 requests a court order compelling jail officials to provide him with the copy he has requested, 5 with compensation of $2,500.00 to Plaintiff for denial of his access to the courts. 6 7 Because Plaintiff seeks a court order compelling jail officials to act on his behalf, the court construes Plaintiff’s petition as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. 8 Preliminary Injunctive Relief 9 AA plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed 10 on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, 11 that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.@ Id. 12 at 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the 13 plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). 14 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 15 preliminary injunctive relief, the court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, 16 it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 17 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of 18 Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the court does not 19 have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. 20 To the extent that Plaintiff seeks a court order compelling officers at Tuolumne County 21 Jail to act on his behalf, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue such an order, because the order 22 would not remedy any of the claims upon which this case proceeds.1 This case was filed 23 against defendants Deputy Imlach, the Tuolumne County Jail, and the Tuolumne County Jail’s 24 medical staff, for failure to provide Plaintiff with adequate medical care. Plaintiff also alleges 25 26 27 28 1 Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff is requesting a copy of his cash account statement in order to proceed with this case, Plaintiff is informed that he is not required to submit a copy of his account statement with his application to proceed in forma pauperis. The form application that was mailed to Plaintiff by the court on July 31, 2018, authorizes “the agency having custody” of him to provide a copy of the account statement to the court. (ECF No. 3-1 at 3.) Therefore, Plaintiff is not required to obtain the copy himself. He only needs to sign and return the application to proceed in forma pauperis. 2 1 in the Complaint that his criminal case has been biased by the District Attorney, Public 2 defender, and judge, who conspired to alter the charges against him. Plaintiff now requests a 3 court order compelling officers at Tuolumne County Jail to provide him with a copy of his cash 4 account statement. Because such an order would not remedy any of the claims in this case, the 5 court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff=s motion must be 6 denied. 7 Plaintiff should, however, be granted an extension of time to file his application to 8 proceed in forma pauperis, if needed. 9 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 11 1. 12 13 Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on August 15, 2018, be DENIED for lack of jurisdiction; and 2. Plaintiff be granted an extension of time in which to submit his application to 14 proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to the court’s order of July 31, 2018. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 16 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 17 (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 18 written objections with the court. 19 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 20 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 21 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 22 (9th Cir. 1991)). Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 23 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 19, 2018 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
