(PC)Dayton v. Reilly ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN MICHAEL DAYTON, No. 2:20-cv-2093 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 REILLY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s claims that on January 9, 2020, while housed at 19 California State Prison, Sacramento, knowing plaintiff suffered from serious mental health issues, 20 defendants Reilly and Hood were deliberately indifferent to an excessive risk to plaintiff’s safety 21 and failed to protect him from attempting suicide in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. 22 This action was stayed on February 2, 2021, as part of the court’s Post-Screening ADR 23 Project. 24 On February 22, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion asking for permission to file a motion for 25 protective order or temporary restraining order. Plaintiff states he fears reprisals for filing this 26 civil case. In the accompanying notice, plaintiff claims this matter is exigent and that his life is in 27 danger. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff provided no specifics as to any potential threat. 28 //// 1 Plaintiff is no longer housed at California State Prison, Sacramento. Plaintiff is advised 2 | that the pendency of an action does not give the court jurisdiction over prison officials in general. 3 | Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 4 || 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010).' This court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to 5 | the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491-93; 6 | Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. Therefore, it is unclear whether this court could grant plaintiff any 7 | relief based on his current circumstances at the California Medical Facility, particularly if such 8 | circumstances do not involve defendants Reilly or Hood. 9 In addition, plaintiff provided no facts demonstrating that he is in imminent danger; 10 | indeed, in his motion, he claims that he “may” be in danger. Absent specific facts as to plaintiffs 11 | current situation, plaintiff's motion is denied without prejudice. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 23) is denied 13 without prejudice. 14 | Dated: February 24, 2021 I Se > AO Norra 16 KENDALL J.NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 |] édayt2093.den 19 20 21 22 23 24 | ! In addition, plaintiff's claims challenging his conditions of confinement are subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). “The PLRA mandates that 25 | inmates exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing ‘any suit challenging prison 26 conditions,’ including, but not limited to, suits under § 1983.” Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006)). The Supreme Court 27 || has held that courts may not excuse an inmate’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing suit under the PLRA, even to take into account “special” circumstances. Ross v. 28 | Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016).