(PC) Leslie v. Claborn et al, No. 1:2019cv00366 - Document 22 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that Plaintiff's 21 Request for Preliminary Injunctive Relief be Denied signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/8/2020. Referred to Judge Unassigned DJ. Objections to F&R due within Fourteen (14) Days. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DESHAWN DESHAY LESLIE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 JEREMY CLABORN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 1:19-cv-00366-NONE-GSA (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED (ECF No. 21.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 Deshawn Deshay Leslie (“Plaintiff”) is a jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma 25 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 26 commencing this action on March 19, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) 27 28 On December 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order allowing him access to the jail’s law library. (ECF No. 21.) 1 1 II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 2 Plaintiff requests a court order granting him access to the library so that he can move 3 forward with this case. He asserts that he previously made a request at the jail to access the law 4 library, which was granted in part, but he is now “without a remedy.” (ECF No. 21 at 1:24.) 5 Because Plaintiff seeks a court order compelling jail officials to act on his behalf the court 6 construes Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. 7 Preliminary Injunctive Relief 8 The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of 9 equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure 10 the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. 11 Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who 12 “demonstrates either (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable 13 harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor. ” 14 Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either 15 approach the plaintiff “must demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury. ” Id. Also, an 16 injunction should not issue if the plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the merits.” Id. At a 17 bare minimum, the plaintiff “must demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or questions 18 serious enough to require litigation.” Id. 19 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court 20 must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 21 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of 22 Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of Los 23 Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or 24 controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Thus, “[a] federal court 25 may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter 26 jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the 27 court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). 28 /// 2 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 On July 28, 2020, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for violatio n 3 of Rules 18 and 20, with leave to file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days. (ECF No. 4 17.) Plaintiff was granted a 90-day extension of time on October 26, 2020. (ECF No. 19.) To 5 date, Plaintiff has not filed a Second Amended Complaint. The Court therefore cannot opine that 6 Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Furthermore, no defendants have yet 7 appeared in this action and the court does not have jurisdiction to order injunctive relief which 8 would require directing individuals not before the Court to take action. Zepeda v. United States 9 Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may 10 issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdictio n 11 over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.”). 12 The court also recognizes that prison administrators “should be accorded wide-ranging 13 deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are 14 needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security. ” Whitle y 15 v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-322 (1986) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1970). 16 Accordingly, the court shall defer to the prison’s policies and practices in granting Plaintiff access 17 to the law library. 18 Plaintiff is not precluded from renewing this motion at a later stage of the proceedings. 19 However, if Plaintiff needs a further extension of time to file the Second Amended Complaint he 20 should file a motion before the deadline expires. 21 IV. 22 23 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on December 4, 2020, be DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 26 (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 27 written objections with the court. 28 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 3 Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 1 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 2 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 3 (9th Cir. 1991)). 4 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 8, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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.