(PC) Belmonte v. Winkfield ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIGUEL BELMONTE, No. 2:19-cv-1189 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 WINKFIELD, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner1 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 18 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 Plaintiff has filed what the court construes as a motion for preliminary injunction. See 21 ECF No. 18 at 4. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends that the motion be 22 denied. 23 I. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 24 On January 15, 2020, plaintiff filed a supplement to his second amended complaint with 25 the court. ECF No. 18. In the supplement, he attaches a document labeled “Order to Show Cause 26 for a Preliminary Injunction.” See ECF No. 18 at 4. It effectively requests that unspecified 27 1 The court is currently waiting for a formal update from plaintiff regarding his incarceration 28 status. 1 defendants be ordered to show cause why the court should not issue a preliminary injunction that 2 would enjoin them and others from “maintaining any possession of any and all ‘civil’ legal 3 documents pertaining to this suit.” See ECF No. 18 at 4. The document also asks that one C.O. 4 Pierce be ordered to “relinquish . . . custody of . . . civil complaints.” See ECF No. 18 at 4. 5 Finally, plaintiff requests that close-circuit video be installed throughout the prison. See id. at 4. 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 A district court may not issue preliminary injunctive relief without primary jurisdiction 8 over the underlying cause of action. Sires v. State of Washington, 314 F.2d 883, 884 (9th Cir. 9 1963). Additionally, an injunction against individuals who are not parties to the action is strongly 10 disfavored. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). 11 In this motion, plaintiff asks for injunctive relief against unspecified defendants and one 12 “C.O. Pierce.” See ECF No. 18 at 4. Pierce is not a named defendant in this action, and no 13 claims have been asserted against him in the second amended complaint. See generally ECF No. 14 17. In addition, plaintiff’s reference to a general group of “defendants” is unacceptably vague for 15 purposes of determining jurisdictional authority of the court. Moreover, in this case, it appears 16 that plaintiff may no longer be incarcerated.2 See generally ECF Nos. 21, 22. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a 18 District Court Judge to this action. 19 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction 20 (see ECF No. 18 at 4) be DENIED. 21 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 22 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days 23 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 24 2 “Once an inmate is removed from the environment in which he is subjected to the challenged 25 policy or practice, absent a claim for damages, he no longer has a legally cognizable interest in a 26 judicial decision on the merits of his claim.” Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1031 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Alvarez, 667 F.3d at 1064 (quotation source omitted)). Federal courts lack 27 jurisdiction over claims that have been rendered moot because “the issues are no longer live” or because the parties no longer possess “a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Jones, 791 28 F.3d at 1031 (quoting Alvarez, 667 F.3d at 1064 (quotation source omitted)). wAOe 2 LUV MELO UING INIT ENN RUT i PI Oe Me PT Ye VI 1 | with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 2 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 3 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 4 | (9th Cir. 1991). 5 || DATED: August 25, 2020 ~ 6 Chtten— Lhane ALLISON CLAIRE 7 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