(PC) Coria v. Garcia ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FERNANDO CORIA, 1:20-cv-01652-NONE-GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED 14 M. GARCIA, et al., (ECF No. 17.) 15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 16 17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Fernando Coria (“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. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 21 commencing this action on November 20, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) 22 On February 11, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking more access to the prison law 23 library at the California Correctional Institution (CCI) in Tehachapi, California, where he is 24 currently incarcerated. (ECF No. 17.) The court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for 25 preliminary injunctive relief. 26 II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 27 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed 28 on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that 1 the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 2 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the 3 plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). 4 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 5 preliminary injunctive relief, the court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, 6 it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 7 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of 8 Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the court does not 9 have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. 10 II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 11 Plaintiff requests a court order compelling prison officials at CCI to allow him more 12 access to the law library in spite of limitations due to Covid-19 pandemic. 13 Analysis 14 The court lacks jurisdiction to issue a court order compelling officials at CCI to allow 15 him more time in the law library. This case was filed against defendants at the California 16 Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison (SATF) when Plaintiff was incarcerated 17 there. Plaintiff now requests a court order for prospective relief at CCI. Because such an order 18 would not remedy any of the claims in this case, which are based upon past events at SATF, the 19 court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s motion must be 20 denied. 21 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 22 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for 23 preliminary injunctive relief, filed on February 11, 2021, be DENIED. 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 26 (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 27 written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 28 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 1 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 2 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 3 (9th Cir. 1991)). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: March 2, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin 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