(PC) Gray v. Clark ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS EUGENE GRAY, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00196-NONE-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ) RECOMMENDING DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. ) REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 14 KEN CLARK, et.al., ) (ECF No. 18) ) 15 Defendants. ) OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS ) 16 ) ) 17 ) 18 Plaintiff Thomas Eugene Gray is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 12, 2020, the Court issued an order granting Defendant’s 20 request for an extension of time until June 2, 2020, for Defendants Hurtado, Jennings and Siefren to file 21 waivers of service of process. On May 19, 2020, the waivers of service of process were filed. On May 22 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed objections to the request for an extension of time to return the waivers. 23 Plaintiff objects to Defendants request for an extension of time to file waivers of service on 24 process on the ground that the delay furthers the justice process in this case and would “amplify the 25 burdensome ordeal that [Plaintiff] was forced to endure without just cause.” However, the Court notes 26 that Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege any ongoing violations but is based on a past incident in which 27 he claims he was subjected to excessive force and a failure to protect. Therefore, Plaintiff has not alleged 28 that he is being further subjected to alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement by the claims 1 that are proceeding in this action. Further, Defendants demonstrated good cause for the extension of 2 time because counsel had not yet been informed whether he would be representing the defendants due 3 to delays associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, although the request was granted with 4 waivers of service to be returned on June 2, 2020, the waivers were returned on May 19, 2020, providing 5 for delay of approximately a week. Plaintiff’s objection is overruled. 6 Plaintiff also seeks an order directing the law librarian to assist him and provide him with access 7 to law library services.1 The relief that Plaintiff is seeking is an injunction. Federal courts are courts of 8 limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by 9 the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los 10 Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. V. Ams. United for Separation 11 of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or 12 controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief 13 are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires 14 that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct 15 the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of 16 the Federal right.” 17 This action is proceeding on a failure to protect claim against Defendants Sielken and Hurtado 18 and an excessive force claim against Defendant Jennings for an incident that occurred in April 2018. 19 The defendants here are correctional staff and Plaintiff is seeking an order that the law librarian, who is 20 not a party in this action, be ordered to assist him and provide him with law library services. However, 21 the Court may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before it. See Hitchman Coal & Coke 22 Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 234-35 (1916); Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 23 1983). The Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the law librarian at the correctional facility 24 based on this case to issue the order Plaintiff requests. 25 26 27 1 While Plaintiff makes conclusory allegations that the law librarian is denying him access to services to obstruct his access to the court and interfere with his civil action, the Court notes that there are currently no outstanding deadlines and nothing 28 wOoOe 4:6 UV EMINENT OIC eer PT Yt VM VI 1 Further, the relief that Plaintiff seeks is not related to the claims proceeding in this action n 2 || would it serve to correct the violation of the federal rights that are at issue here. Thus, an injunction 3 ||not proper. See Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9 4 || Cir. 2015) (holding there must be a “sufficient nexus between the request in a motion for □□□□□□□□□ 5 || relief and the underlying claim itself”). The Court finds that the pendency of this action does not provic 6 || abasis to grant the relief requested. The Court recommends that Plaintiff's request for an order requirit 7 || the law librarian to assist him and provide him with access to the law library services be denied. 8 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs request for an ord 9 || requiring the law librarian to assist him and provide him with access to law library services be DENIEI 10 This findings and recommendations is submitted to the district judge assigned to this actio 11 || pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within thirty (30) days of servi 12 || of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to this findings and recommendatio1 13 || with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections | 14 || Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the magistra 15 ||judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are □□□□□□ 16 || that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on □□□□□ 17 || Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 136 18 || (9th Cir. 1991)). 19 20 ||} IT IS SO ORDERED. Al (Fe _ 21 ll Dated: _ May 27, 2020 OF 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28