(PC) Wade v. Cates ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODERICK LYNN WADE, 1:22-cv-00123-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR CLERK TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A UNITED STATES DISTRICT 13 vs. JUDGE TO THIS CASE 14 CATES, et al., and 15 Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 16 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED AS 17 MOOT 18 (ECF No. 10.) 19 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 20 21 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Roderick Lynn Wade (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 24 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 25 commencing this action on January 31, 2022. (ECF No. 1.) 26 On October 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion titled “Motion for Order to Show Cause for 27 a Preliminary Injunction & Temporary Restraining Order,” which the Court construes as a motion 28 for preliminary injunctive relief. (ECF No. 10.) 1 II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 2 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed 3 on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that 4 the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 5 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the 6 plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). 7 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 8 preliminary injunctive relief, the court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, 9 it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 10 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of 11 Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the court does not 12 have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. 13 II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 14 Plaintiff requests a court order enjoining officials at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison in 15 Blythe, California, where he is presently incarcerated, from pursuing any surgical procedures 16 dealing with any parts of his cervical spinal column without first having another MRI done to 17 determine whether surgery is now the proper medical procedure necessary to meet Plaintiff’s 18 medical needs, and after Plaintiff is able to consult with the medical doctor to determine the right 19 prognosis. 20 Analysis 21 The court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff as such an order would 22 neither remedy any of the claims upon which this case proceeds, nor are the persons from whom 23 Plaintiff now seeks injunctive relief defendants in this complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint concerns 24 events that allegedly occurred at California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California, 25 from 2017-2021. Plaintiff now requests a court order enjoining officials at Chuckawalla State 26 Prison in Blythe, California, where Plaintiff is now incarcerated, from pursuing any surgical 27 procedures dealing with any parts of his cervical spinal column. Because such an order would 28 not remedy any of the claims in this case, and the persons from whom Plaintiff seeks relief are 1 not defendants in this case, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff, and 2 Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. 3 III. CONCLUSION, ORDER, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a United 5 States District Judge to this case. 6 and 7 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for 8 preliminary injunctive relief, filed on October 13, 2022, be DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 11 (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 12 written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 13 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 14 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 15 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 16 (9th Cir. 1991)). 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: October 14, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28