(PC) Martinez v. Brown ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICARDO MARTINEZ, 1:19-cv-00967-AWI-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 13 vs. MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED 14 K. BROWN, et al., (ECF Nos. 4, 5, 22.) 15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Ricardo Martinez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 24 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on 25 June 19, 2019, at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (ECF 26 No. 1.) On June 27, 2019, Plaintiff’s case was transferred to this court. (ECF No. 7.) 27 On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed two documents, each titled by Plaintiff “Objection 28 Letter.” (ECF No. 4, 5.) On May 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. 1 (ECF No. 22.) The court construes these three documents as motions for preliminary injunctive 2 relief. 3 II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 4 Procedurally, a federal district court may issue emergency injunctive relief only if it has 5 personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. See 6 Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that one 7 “becomes a party officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of 8 summons or other authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the party served 9 must appear to defend.). Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court 10 jurisdiction over prison officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491– 11 93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction 12 is limited to the parties in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is 13 proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. The court may not attempt 14 to determine the rights of persons not before it. See, e.g., Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 15 245 U.S. 229, 234-35, 38 S.Ct. 65, 62 L.Ed. 260 (1916); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727-28 16 (9th Cir. 1983); Lathrop v. Unidentified, Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel, 817 F.Supp. 953, 961 17 (M.D. Fl. 1993); Kandlbinder v. Reagan, 713 F.Supp. 337, 339 (W.D. Mo. 1989); Suster v. 18 Marshall, 952 F. Supp. 693, 701 (N.D. Ohio 1996); see also Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 19 702, 99 S.Ct. 2545, 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979) (injunctive relief must be “narrowly tailored to give 20 only the relief to which plaintiffs are entitled”). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2) 21 an injunction binds only “the parties to the action,” their “officers, agents, servants, employees, 22 and attorneys,” and “other persons who are in active concert or participation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 65(d)(2)(A)-(C). 24 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 25 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted); Epona v. Cty. of Ventura, 26 876 F.3d 1214, 1227 (9th Cir. 2017) (same). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must 27 establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in 28 the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an 1 injunction is in the public interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction 2 may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation 3 omitted). “Under Winter, plaintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just 4 possible, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 5 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). 6 Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the 7 Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly 8 drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the 9 least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” Section 3626(a)(2) 10 also places significant limits upon a court’s power to grant preliminary injunctive relief to 11 inmates. “Section 3626(a) therefore operates simultaneously to restrict the equity jurisdiction of 12 federal courts and to protect the bargaining power of prison administrators – no longer may courts 13 grant or approve relief that binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional 14 minimum.” Gilmore v. People of the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2000). 15 III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS 16 A. First Objection Letter (ECF No. 4.) 17 In the first Objection Letter, Plaintiff requests a court order forcing prison authorities to 18 comply with the timelines for prison appeals. Plaintiff also requests a preliminary injunction 19 ordering defendants Pfeiffer and J. Lewis to stop violating Plaintiff’s rights, denying him medical 20 care, and retaliating against him. A large part of the letter describes prison appeals filed by 21 Plaintiff, purportedly demonstrating that his appeals have not been responded to in a timely 22 manner. 23 B. Second Objection Letter (ECF No. 5.) 24 In this letter, Plaintiff makes allegations against prison staff regarding several incidents 25 occurring from August 7, 2011 to August 2, 2018, when Plaintiff was incarcerated at Solano 26 County Jail, Pleasant Valley State Prison, Corcoran State Prison, Salinas Valley State Prison, and 27 Kern Valley State Prison. Plaintiff requests the court to “form an evaluation of adjudicate and 28 for a justice of court of law.” (sic) (ECF No. 5 at 1.) 1 C. Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 22.) 2 In his motion for preliminary injunction, Plaintiff requests a court order enjoining the 3 defendants and other prison authorities at KVSP from assaults for hire, assaults by custody staff, 4 assaults by prison doctors, and assaults by a person motivated solely by the pay. Plaintiff also 5 requests an order stopping the denial of serious medical care, inappropriate processing of medical 6 grievances and inmate appeals, and daily threats, intimidations, and harassments. Plaintiff sets 7 forth examples of inappropriate behavior by prison staff and other inmates occurring in July 8 2018, July 2019, March 2019, February 2020, and April 2020. 9 IV. ANALYSIS 10 The court lacks jurisdiction to issue the orders granting preliminary injunctive relief 11 sought by Plaintiff, because the orders would not remedy any of the claims upon which this case 12 proceeds. This case was filed against defendants at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) based on 13 events occurring before June 19, 2019, the date the Complaint was filed. Plaintiff now requests 14 court orders for prospective relief to protect him from future assaults and other bad behavior by 15 prison staff and other inmates at KVSP. Because such an order would not remedy any of the 16 claims in this case, the court lacks jurisdiction to grant the preliminary injunctions sought by 17 Plaintiff. 18 If Plaintiff seeks adjudication by the court for claims that arose before Plaintiff filed the 19 present Complaint on July 19, 2019, those claims should be brought in Plaintiff’s Complaint. All 20 of Plaintiff’s allegations and claims for the Complaint must be included in the Complaint itself. 21 To add claims to the Complaint at this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff must file an amended 22 complaint. 23 V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 24 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions 25 for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on June 19, 2019 and May 21, 2020, be DENIED for lack 26 of jurisdiction. 27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 1 (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 2 written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to 3 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 4 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 5 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 6 (9th Cir. 1991)). 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: June 27, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28