(PC) Hoffmann et al v. Jones et al, No. 2:2015cv01748 - Document 36 (E.D. Cal. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/29/2017 DIRECTING the Clerk to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case and RECOMMENDING that the 26 Motion for Injunctive Relief be denied. Referred to District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (York, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Hoffmann et al v. Jones et al Doc. 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 KASEY F. HOFFMAN, 11 No. 2:15-cv-1748-EFB P Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 KEVIN JONES, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983, has filed a motion for injunctive relief. ECF No. 26. As discussed below, the motion 18 must be denied. Legal Standards 19 20 Injunctive relief – either temporary or permanent – is an “extraordinary remedy, never 21 awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). The Supreme 22 Court has held that: 23 24 25 A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. 26 27 Id. at 20. Additionally, “[a] federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction 28 over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration & Naturalization 2 Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). 3 Background 4 Plaintiff asks the court to enter an injunction which removes him from his current prison 5 job. ECF No. 26 at 3. He states that “at any given time he has about 23 cases in court” and that 6 the time constraints of his current job do not permit him to litigate this many cases effectively. 7 Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff offers several alternative jobs which he believes would better accommodate 8 his litigative practices. Id. at 3. 9 10 Analysis The Supreme Court has held that the right of access to courts does not require the state to 11 enable a prisoner to “litigate effectively once in court.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 12 (1996). Nor does it “guarantee inmates the wherewithal to transform themselves into litigating 13 engines capable of filing everything from shareholder derivative actions to slip-and-fall claims.” 14 Id. at 355. Implicit in plaintiff’s motion is the untenable argument that state prisoners have a 15 constitutional right to act as full-time litigants. Lewis confirms that they do not. Accordingly, 16 plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits. Nor has he shown that he 17 is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, or that the balance of 18 equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. 19 20 21 22 23 Conclusion The parties have not consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 26) be DENIED. 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 26 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 27 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 28 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 2 1 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 2 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 DATED: November 29, 2017. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 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.
