(PC) Reed v. Buckel ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MYCHAL REED, Case No. 1:23-cv-01431-ADA-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 v. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 14 BUCKEL, et al., (ECF No. 10) 15 Defendants. FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 16 17 Plaintiff Mychal Reed (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been 19 screened. 20 I. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 21 On October 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court issue an order 22 directing Kern Valley State Prison officials to E-File all of Plaintiff’s correspondence to the 23 Court, in Plaintiff’s presence. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff states that the request is due to KVSP 24 prison officials intercepting and tampering with Plaintiff’s legal mail to all courts. (Id.) The 25 Court construes the request as a motion for a preliminary injunction. 26 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 27 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 28 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 1 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 2 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction 3 may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation 4 omitted). 5 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 6 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 7 have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); 8 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 9 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no 10 power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 11 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find 12 the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation 13 of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the 14 Federal right.” 15 Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 16 officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. 17 United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties 18 in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 19 U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 20 Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks in this motion. The 21 Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental 22 entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s 23 complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to 24 state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant 25 who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 26 As Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff has 27 shown a likelihood of success on the merits. In addition, no defendant has been ordered served, 28 and no defendant has yet made an appearance. Thus, at this time the Court lacks personal 1 jurisdiction over prison officials at KVSP or any other staff who process Plaintiff’s legal mail. 2 Finally, Plaintiff is informed that, pursuant to the Court’s Local Rules, parties proceeding 3 pro se are required to file and serve paper documents, Local Rule 133(a), and may not utilize 4 electronic filing except with the permission of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge, Local Rule 5 133(b)(2). Requests to use electronic filing as an exception to the Local Rules shall be submitted 6 as a written motion setting out an explanation of reasons for the exception. Local Rule 133(b)(3). 7 The Court notes that Plaintiff may request an exception that will allow Plaintiff to personally 8 utilize electronic filing, but even if such an exception were granted, the Court would not issue an 9 order requiring prison officials to electronically file documents on Plaintiff’s behalf. 10 II. Recommendation 11 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary 12 injunction, (ECF No. 10), be DENIED. 13 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 14 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 15 (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 16 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 17 Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 18 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 19 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 20 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: October 23, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28