(PC) Talamantes v. Merced County Jail ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY TALAMANTES, 1:20-cv-01643-DAD-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 13 vs. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED 14 MERCED COUNTY JAIL, et al., (ECF No. 11.) 15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 Jeffrey Talamantes (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 26 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 27 commencing this action on November 18, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint awaits the court’s 28 requisite screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 1 On June 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed notice to the court that he is in fear for his safety and 2 freedom, that he was retaliated against by Merced County officers who lost his paperwork and 3 other items. To the extent that Plaintiff requests the court to compel prison officials or Merced 4 County officers to act on his behalf, or refrain from acting against him, the court construes this 5 request as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. 6 II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 7 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed 8 on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that 9 the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter 10 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citations omitted). An injunction may 11 only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation 12 omitted) (emphasis added). 13 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 14 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, 15 it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 16 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of 17 Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the Court does not 18 have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. 19 Analysis 20 To the extent that Plaintiff seeks a court order compelling officers or staff at Merced 21 County Jail or Corcoran State Prison to act on his behalf, or refrain from acting against him, the 22 court lacks jurisdiction to issue such an order because the order would not remedy any of the 23 claims upon which this case proceeds. This case was filed against defendants employed at the 24 Merced County Jail based on events occurring before November 18, 2020 at the Merced County 25 Jail in Merced, California. Plaintiff now requests a court order protecting him from present and 26 future actions by officers at the Merced County Jail and Corcoran State Prison. 27 Further, no defendants have yet appeared in this action, hence the court does not have 28 personal jurisdiction to order injunctive relief which would require directing individuals not 1 before the Court to take action. Zepeda v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 753 2 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal 3 jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to 4 determine the rights of persons not before the court.”). 5 Finally, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief against officials at Merced 6 County Jail should be denied as moot because Plaintiff is no longer in custody at this facility.1 7 When Plaintiff filed this case he was incarcerated at the Merced County Jail. Plaintiff is currently 8 incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison. Where the prisoner is challenging conditions of 9 confinement and is seeking injunctive relief, transfer to another prison renders the request for 10 injunctive relief moot absent some evidence of an expectation of being transferred back. See 11 Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 12 1991) (per curiam); see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 n.5 (9th Cir. 2007). 13 Here, there is no evidence that Plaintiff expects to be transferred back to the Merced County Jail. 14 Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion should be denied. 15 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for 17 preliminary injunctive relief, filed on June 3, 2021, be DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 19 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 20 (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 21 written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to 22 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 23 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 24 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 25 (9th Cir. 1991)). 26 27 28 1 On April 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of his address to Corcoran State Prison in Corcoran, California. (ECF No. 7.) 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 Dated: June 7, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28