(PC) Braden v. Hunt ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL W. BRADEN, Case No. 1:23-cv-00469-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO THE COURT AND REQUEST FOR ADR 13 v. (ECF No. 9) 14 K. HUNT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff Paul W. Braden (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 21 pauperis, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) This action, originally 22 filed in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California, was transferred to the 23 Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California on March 28, 2023. (See ECF No. 6.) 24 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for ADR, filed on March 27, 2023. (ECF 25 No. 9.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 I. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Plaintiff indicates his case has been stalled for over six months, and requests an order 4 requiring CDCR to present someone with settlement authority to engage in settlement 5 negotiations and/or the ADR program. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff also appears to seek an order 6 directing service of the complaint on the named defendants. However, Plaintiff’s motion/requests 7 must be denied. 8 The Court notes it is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 9 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 10 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or 11 malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 12 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 13 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Here, the Court has yet to screen Plaintiff’s complaint by this Court 14 as it was just transferred. Thus, because the Court has not determined that the complaint states a 15 cognizable claim against anyone, directing service on any individual is premature. So, too, would 16 be an order requiring parties who have not yet been served or appeared in this litigation to 17 participate in settlement discussions. Indeed, the Court notes that the pendency of this action 18 does not give it jurisdiction over prison officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 19 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. U.S., 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). Rather, the 20 Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the viable legal claims upon 21 which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491–93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. Thus, 22 Plaintiff’s motion is premature, and must be denied at this time. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Il. 2 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 3 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion and request 4 | for ADR (ECF No. 9) is DENIED, without prejudice. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Zl Se 7 | Dated: _March 30, 2023 _ _PAA ee UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28