(PC) Dillingham v. Garcia ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JERRY DILLINGHAM, 1:19-cv-00461-AWI-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 13 vs. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED 14 J. GARCIA, et al., (ECF No. 44.) 15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 16 17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Jerry Dillingham (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 20 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed the 21 Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) On February 8, 2021, plaintiff filed a 22 document titled “Emergency Motion for Administrative Relief Protection,” which the court 23 construes as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. (ECF No. 44.) 24 II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 25 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed 26 on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that 27 the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. 28 Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008). An 1 injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. 2 at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). 3 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 4 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, 5 it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 6 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of 7 Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the Court does not 8 have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. 9 Analysis 10 Plaintiff seeks a court order requiring defendants Diaz, Pfeiffer, and other prison officials 11 to transfer Plaintiff to Atascadero State Mental Health Hospital together with Plaintiff’s personal 12 property and litigation materials; to provide Plaintiff with an ADA wheelchair; to affix an “S” 13 suffix permanently single-celling Plaintiff; and, to refrain from harassing or retaliating against 14 Plaintiff. 15 The court lacks jurisdiction to compel prison officials at Kern Valley State Prison to act 16 on Plaintiff’s behalf as Plaintiff requests because such an order would not remedy any of the 17 claims upon which this case proceeds. This case concerns Plaintiff’s allegations that Plaintiff 18 was subjected to excessive force, discrimination, retaliation, failure to protect him, and 19 inadequate medical care, and conspiracy to murder him, which allegedly occurred prior to 20 Plaintiff filing this case on April 9, 2019. 21 Plaintiff now requests a court order transferring him and protecting him from present and 22 future actions by prison officials. Because such an order would not remedy any of the claims in 23 this case, which are based upon events occurring before April 9, 2019, the court lacks jurisdiction 24 to issue the order sought by Plaintiff, thus Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. 25 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 26 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for 27 preliminary injunctive relief, filed on February 8, 2021, be DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. 28 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 3 (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 4 written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 5 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 6 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 7 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 8 (9th Cir. 1991)). 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: February 12, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28