(PC) Washington v. Hicks ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TRACYE BENARD WASHINGTON, 1:19-cv-00156-NONE-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 13 vs. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED 14 HICKS, et al., (ECF No. 39.) 15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 16 FOURTEEN DAYS 17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Tracye Benard Washington (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this 20 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s original 21 Complaint filed on February 5, 2019, against defendants Sergeant David Hicks and Correctional 22 Officer Hipolito Rocha for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF 23 No. 1.) 24 On April 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, which the 25 court construes as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. (ECF No. 39.) 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 Plaintiff requests a court order compelling officials at the California Substance Abuse 11 Treatment Facility and State Prison (“SATF”), where Plaintiff is currently incarcerated, to 12 provide him with a magnifier for his electronic tablet. Plaintiff states that he has been harassed 13 by an officer at the prison because of his requests for a magnifier, which he needs because of his 14 vision impairment. Plaintiff requests an order enjoining Lieutenant Lopez and correctional 15 officers from harassing him, and to be provided with a magnifier. 16 To the extent that Plaintiff seeks a court order compelling officers at SATF to act or 17 refrain from acting, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue such an order because the order would 18 not remedy any of the claims upon which this case proceeds. This case was filed against 19 defendants Hicks and Rocha for their use of excessive force against Plaintiff based on events 20 occurring at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated 21 there. Plaintiff now requests a court order protecting him from present and future actions by 22 prison officials at SATF. Because such an order would not remedy any of the claims in this case, 23 the court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s motion must be 24 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 April 26, 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, any party may file 4 written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to 5 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served 6 and filed within ten days after the objections are filed. The parties are advised that failure to file 7 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 8 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 9 (9th Cir. 1991)). 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: May 6, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28