You're viewing Docket Item 15 from the case (PC) Passineau v. Oxborrow et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:12-cv-01894-LJO-GSA Document 15 Filed 11/21/13 Page 1 of 4
















BRADY ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff,

vs.

A. HEDGPETH, et al.,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Defendants.

16

17

18

19

I.

BACKGROUND





UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA





1:11-cv-00761-LJO-GSA-PC


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED
(Docs. 32, 33, 35.)


OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS




20

Brady K. Armstrong ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

21

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



May 11, 2011. (Doc. 1.) On November 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint.

(Doc. 43.)

Now pending are Plaintiff=s motions for preliminary injunction and temporary

restraining order, filed on July 5, 2013 and July 10, 2013, and July 15, 2013. (Docs. 32, 33,

35.)

///

///

1



Case 1:12-cv-01894-LJO-GSA Document 15 Filed 11/21/13 Page 2 of 4



1

II.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

2

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of

3

equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure

4

the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v.

5

Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who

6

Ademonstrates either (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable

7

harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.@

8

Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either

9

approach the plaintiff Amust demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.@ Id. Also, an

10

injunction should not issue if the plaintiff Ashows no chance of success on the merits.@ Id. At a

11

bare minimum, the plaintiff Amust demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or

12

questions serious enough to require litigation.@ Id.

13

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court

14

must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95,

15

102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation

16

of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of

17

Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or

18

controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Thus, A[a] federal

19

court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject

20

matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not

21

before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir.

22

1985).

23

24

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks court orders prohibiting prison officials from retaliating against him by

25

submitting fabricated serious rules violation reports, denying him second medical opinions by

26

off-site doctors, communicating with all other CDCR state employees, poisoning Plaintiff’s

27

food, assaulting him, and interfering with his legal copywork. Plaintiff also seeks court orders

28

///



2



Case 1:12-cv-01894-LJO-GSA Document 15 Filed 11/21/13 Page 3 of 4



1

directing prison officials to return his personal property, release him from the SHU, and

2

transfer him to another facility.

3

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility

4

in Corcoran, California. The events at issue in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint allegedly

5

occurred at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) in Delano, California, in 2006-2008 when

6

Plaintiff was incarcerated there.1 Therefore, the court orders requested by Plaintiff would not

7

remedy any of the claims upon which this action proceeds. Plaintiff requests court orders

8

protecting him from present and future actions by defendants. Because such orders would not

9

remedy any of the past claims upon which this action proceeds, the court lacks jurisdiction to

10

issue the orders sought by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff=s motions must be denied.

11

Moreover, A[A] federal court may [only] issue an injunction if it has personal

12

jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to

13

determine the rights of persons not before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration

Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Because none of the defendants

have appeared in this action, the Court does not have jurisdiction to issue an order prohibiting

any of them from acting against Plaintiff. Further, because Plaintiff is no longer subjected to

the actions of employees at KVSP, his motions for court orders prohibiting those employees=

actions are moot.

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff=s motions

for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on July 5, 2013 and July 10, 2013, and July 15, 2013, be

DENIED.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within thirty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written



1 Plaintiff states in the First Amended Complaint: “At all times mentioned in this complaint,
Brady Armstrong was a state prisoner/inmate within the CDCR ‘at’ Kern Valley State Prison[] ‘located’ in
Delano, County of Kern, California.” (First Amd Cmp, Doc. 43 at 3 ¶2.)

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



3



Case 1:12-cv-01894-LJO-GSA Document 15 Filed 11/21/13 Page 4 of 4



1

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate

2

Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections

3

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v.

4

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).



5

6




IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2013


6i0kij8d




DEAC_Signature-END:

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4