(PC) Beaton v. Valley State Prison ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL NIVARD BEATON, CASE NO. 1:20-cv-0005 NONE JLT (PC) 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 Plaintiff, TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 14 v. 15 (Doc. 21.) SERGEANT D. MILLER, et al., 16 FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 17 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff moves for a temporary restraining order barring officials at Valley State Prison in 20 Coachella, California from transferring him to another institution, which plaintiff contends is in 21 retaliation for this pending civil rights action. (Doc. 21.) 22 The analysis for a temporary restraining order is substantially identical to that for a 23 preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush and Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 24 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). A preliminary injunction should not issue unless necessary to prevent 25 threatened injury that would impair the court’s ability to grant effective relief in a pending action. 26 “A preliminary injunction ... is not a preliminary adjudication on the merits but rather a device for 27 preserving the status quo and preventing the irreparable loss of right before judgment.” Sierra On– 28 1 Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). A preliminary injunction 2 represents the exercise of a far-reaching power not to be indulged except in a case clearly 3 warranting it. Dymo Indus. v. Tapeprinter, Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1964). “The proper 4 legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to demonstrate ‘that he is likely to 5 succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 6 relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.’” 7 Stormans, Inc., v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009), quoting Winter v. Natural Res. 8 Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of 9 confinement, any preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than 10 necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive 11 means necessary to correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). If the Court does not have an actual 12 case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Valley Force Christian 13 Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). 14 The Court recently screening plaintiff’s second amended complaint and found it to state a 15 First Amendment retaliation claim against Registered Nurse J. Valenzuela-Quezada. The pendency 16 of this action, however, does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general or over 17 the conditions of an inmate’s confinement unrelated to the claims before it. Summers v. Earth Island 18 Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492–493 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 19 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the cognizable legal 20 claims on which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 492–493; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 21 969. Plaintiff’s motion must therefore be denied for lack of jurisdiction over the prison officials 22 with the authority to effectuate or prevent his transfer to another institution. Accordingly, the Court 23 RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 21) be denied. 24 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 25 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 26 fourteen days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file 27 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 28 1 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections 2 within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 3 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: September 30, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28