(PC) White v. Krantz ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CORY JAMES WHITE, 1:20-cv-00892-ADA-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 13 vs. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED AS 14 KRANTZ, et al., MOOT 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 20.) 16 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Cory James White (“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 June 29, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) 22 On July 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion titled “Petition for an Order Granting Pendente 23 Lite to Plaintiff,” which the Court construes as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. (ECF 24 No. 20.) 25 II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 26 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed 27 on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that 28 the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 1 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the 2 plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). 3 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 4 preliminary injunctive relief, the court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, 5 it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 6 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of 7 Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the court does not 8 have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. 9 III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 10 Plaintiff, who is currently housed at California State Prison-Los Angeles County (CSP- 11 LAC), requests a court order compelling CDCR to allow him to observe the tenents of Judaism 12 on Jewish Holy Day(s). 13 Analysis 14 The court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff as the order would 15 neither remedy any of the claims upon which this case proceeds as Plaintiff is no longer housed 16 at KVSP, but more importantly, Plaintiff requests his relief from a non party, CDCR, which is 17 not a defendant in this case. In short, Plaintiff’s complaint concerns events that allegedly 18 occurred at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California, based on events occurring in 2018- 19 19. Plaintiff now requests a court order compelling CDCR to enforce his requested relief at 20 California State Prison-Los Angeles County in Lancaster, California, where Plaintiff is now 21 incarcerated. Because such an order would not remedy any of the claims contained in this case, 22 and because CDCR is not a party to this case, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order 23 sought by Plaintiff, and thus Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. “A federal court may issue an 24 injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction 25 over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda 26 v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). 27 IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 28 1 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for 2 preliminary injunctive relief, filed on July 8, 2022, be DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. 3 /// 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 6 (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 7 written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 8 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 9 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 10 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 11 (9th Cir. 1991)). 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: October 14, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28