(PC) Zaiza v. Clark et al, No. 1:2019cv01476 - Document 40 (E.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending That Plaintiff's 32 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief be Denied, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/11/2022. Objections to F&R due within FOURTEEN DAYS. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE ROBERTO ZAIZA, 12 Plaintiffs, 13 14 vs. 15 CLARK, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 I. 1:19-cv-01476-DAD-GSA-PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED (ECF No. 32.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS BACKGROUND Jose Roberto Zaiza (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on October 17, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds with the First Amended Complaint against Defendants Ken Clark (Warden) and Captain J. 22 Gallagher1 (collectively, “Defendants”) for insufficient access to out-of-cell exercise in violation 23 of the Eighth Amendment.2 (ECF No. 11.) 24 25 1 26 2 27 28 Sued as Gallager. On April 20, 2021, the court issued an order dismissing all claims and defendants from this case except for Plaintiff’s adverse conditions of confinement claims against defendants Clark, Gallagher, and Baughman, for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 15.) On January 27, 2022, the Court granted in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing Defendant Baughman from this case. (ECF No. 21.) 1 1 On March 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. (ECF No. 2 32.) On May 2, 2022, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 38.) The motion 3 is now before the Court. Local Rule 230(l). 4 II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 5 Plaintiff requests a court order lifting the quarantine lockdown at the prison and allowing 6 him access to the law library. Plaintiff asserts that early in March 2022, Defendant Ken Clark 7 (Warden) ordered that the C-Facility 3 Building, where Plaintiff is housed, be placed on a Covid 8 19 quarantine lockdown. Plaintiff argues that Defendant Clark has not followed CDC guidelines 9 limiting enforcement of the lockdown to 21 days. Plaintiff claims he does not have the Covid 19 10 virus and that he should have law library access. 11 Defendants oppose the motion and argue that Plaintiff does have access to the law library 12 because even during short-term lockdowns the library paging system was still in effect and 13 available to general users, subject to custody status and librarian availability. While Defendants 14 acknowledge that Plaintiff’s access to the library is not unlimited, they assert that Plaintiff has 15 not been denied access to legal materials to which he was entitled and prison officials have 16 promptly responded to his requests for materials, forms, and cases for in-cell study. Defendants 17 also argue that Plaintiff has not shown that he will suffer irreparable harm if his requested relief 18 is not granted, that he is likely to succeed on the merits in this lawsuit, that the balance of equities 19 tips in his favor, or that an injunction is in the public interest. 20 Preliminary Injunctive Relief 21 The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of 22 equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure 23 the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. 24 Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who 25 “demonstrates either (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable 26 harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.” 27 Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either 28 approach the plaintiff “must demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. Also, an 2 1 injunction should not issue if the plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the merits.” Id. At a 2 bare minimum, the plaintiff “must demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or questions 3 serious enough to require litigation.” Id. 4 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court 5 must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 6 102, 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); Jones v. City of Los 8 Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or 9 controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Thus, “[a] federal court 10 may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter 11 jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the 12 court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). 13 III. DISCUSSION 14 In Plaintiff’s case, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff. In 15 addition to establishing irreparable harm, the injunctive relief sought must be related to the claims 16 brought in the complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 17 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015) (“When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in 18 the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.”) Here, the Court 19 lacks jurisdiction because the requested order would not remedy any of the claims upon which 20 this case proceeds. Plaintiff’s lawsuit proceeds only on his claims that he was given insufficient 21 access to out-of-cell exercise in violation of the Eighth Amendment. In this request, Plaintiff 22 seeks a court order granting him access to the law library. Because such an order would not 23 remedy any of the claims in this case the court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by 24 Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. 25 administrators “should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of 26 policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline 27 and to maintain institutional security.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-322 (1986) (quoting 28 3 The court also recognizes that prison 1 Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1970). Accordingly, the court shall defer to the prison’s 2 policies and practices in ordering lockdowns and granting Plaintiff access to the law library. 3 IV. 4 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on March 21, 2022, be DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 7 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 8 (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 9 written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 10 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 11 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 12 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 13 (9th Cir. 1991)). 14 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 11, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
