(PC) Beckett v. Scalia ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW H. BECKETT, Case No. 1:20-cv-01468-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 v. PRODUCTION OF PROPERTY 14 SCALIA, et al., (Doc. 23) 15 Defendants. 16 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 17 18 The Clerk of Court to assign a District Judge. 19 20 Plaintiff Matthew H. Beckett is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 21 in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting the 22 production of property withheld when he was transferred from California State Prison (CSP)– 23 Sacramento to Atascadero State Hospital. (Doc. 23 at 1, 4.) Plaintiff requests that the Court 24 intervene and command the Warden and California Department of Corrections and 25 Rehabilitation (CDCR) to produce all property withheld. (Id. at 4.) Because of the relief sought, 26 the Court construes the pleading as a motion for a preliminary injunction and recommends the 27 denial of the request. 28 /// 1 I. DISCUSSION 2 A. Jurisdiction and Rule 65 3 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 4 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). The Court’s jurisdiction 5 is limited to the parties in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is 6 proceeding. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009). It may issue preliminary 7 injunctive relief only if personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over 8 the lawsuit have been established. See Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 9 U.S. 344, 350 (1999). 10 Under Rule 65, an injunction binds only “the parties to the action,” their “officers, agents, 11 servants, employees, and attorneys,” and “other persons who are in active concert or 12 participation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(A)–(C). The movant must also give “notice to the adverse 13 party” before the Court can issue injunctive relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a). A putative defendant 14 “becomes a party officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of 15 summons or other authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the party must 16 appear to defend.” Murphy Bros., 526 U.S. at 350. The pendency of this action does not give the 17 Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491–93. 18 Approximately three weeks after filing the instant motion, Plaintiff filed his second 19 amended complaint (SAC). (Doc. 24.) This pleading is currently pending for screening by the 20 Court. Therefore, at this early stage of the proceedings, this case lacks an operative complaint. 21 Without an operative complaint and service on Defendants, there is no case or controversy 22 before the Court. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983). Additionally, because neither 23 the Warden nor CDCR is a putative defendant, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over these 24 non-parties. 25 B. Nexus 26 The injunctive relief sought must be related to the claims brought in the complaint. See 27 Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015). In 28 other words, “there must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for 1 injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint.” Id. at 636 (adopting 2 Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994)). Absent a nexus between the injury 3 claimed in the motion and the underlying complaint, the Court lacks the authority to grant 4 Plaintiff injunctive relief. Id. A preliminary injunction only is appropriate when it grants relief 5 of the same nature as that to be finally granted. Id. (citing De Beers Consol. Mines v. United 6 States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)). 7 The Court has conducted a preliminary review of the submitted SAC to determine 8 whether the injunctive relief sought is related to Plaintiff’s claims. It is not. In the SAC, Plaintiff 9 alleges Defendants, Correctional Officers (COs) at CSP–Corcoran, subjected him to excessive 10 force; retaliated against him for submitting 602 inmate grievances; obstructed his use of the 11 inmate grievance and appeals system; denied him medical treatment; labeled him a snitch and a 12 sex offender to encourage attacks by other inmates; deprived him of food and water; conduced 13 frequent cell searches and removed his personal property and legal documents. (Doc. 24.) 14 The instant motion concerns documents lost or destroyed when he was transferred from 15 CSP–Sacramento, and Plaintiff attaches a letter he sent to Warden J. Lynch of CSP–Sacramento 16 requesting the return of his property. Thus, the request for injunctive relief lacks the appropriate 17 nexus to the SAC and should be denied.1 18 II. CONCLUSION 19 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Court DENY Plaintiff’s motion for 20 production of property. (Doc. 23) 21 The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a District Judge to this case. 22 23 24 Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank 25 26 27 28 1 For this reason, the Court will not analyze the merits of Plaintiff’s request for documents under 1 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 2 | Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen 3 | (14) days from the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file 4 || written objections with the Court. The document should be titled, “Objections to Magistrate 5 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Parties are advised that failure to file objections within 6 | the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 7 | 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 8 | ITIS ORDERED. ” | Dated: _ October 2, 2023 | Word bo 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28