(PC) Gonzales v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 GIOVANNI GONZALES (aka Sharon Case No. 1:19-cv-01467-AWI-BAM (PC) Gonzales), 9 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Plaintiff, REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 10 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION v. 11 (ECF No. 28) CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 12 CORRECTIONS AND FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE REHABILITATION, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Giovanni Gonzales, aka Sharon Gonzales, (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner 16 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Diaz, Song, 18 Mitchell, and Does 1–50 in their official capacities for purposes of injunctive relief, for deliberate 19 indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and for 20 discrimination based on Plaintiff’s transgender status under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal 21 Protection Clause. 22 I. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 23 On March 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion for a Court Order to Enforce 24 (CCWF) to Give Plaintiff 4 Hours a Week Law Library Access,” which the Court construes as a 25 motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff states that due to COVID-19, he has 26 been hindered in getting adequate access to the law library at CCWF to properly represent himself 27 in this action. As Plaintiff requested that the Court appoint him an attorney and the request was 28 denied, Plaintiff argues that without proper representation and adequate ability to access the law 1 library, Plaintiff is being subjected to a due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment. 2 Plaintiff therefore requests a Court order forcing CCWF, Plaintiff’s current institution, to give 3 Plaintiff 4 hours per week of law library access. (Id.) 4 As the deadline for Defendants to file a response or opposition to Plaintiff’s motion has 5 expired and the stay of this action has now been lifted, (ECF No. 39), the motion is deemed 6 submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 7 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 8 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 9 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 10 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 11 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction 12 may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation 13 omitted). 14 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 15 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 16 have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); 17 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 18 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no 19 power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 20 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find 21 the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation 22 of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the 23 Federal right.” 24 Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 25 officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. 26 United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties 27 in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 28 U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 1 Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks in this motion. 2 Although Plaintiff’s complaint has been screened and found to state cognizable claims, this does 3 not mean that Plaintiff has shown a likelihood of success on the merits. In addition, although 4 Defendants are sued in their official capacities, Defendants are being sued in relation to Plaintiff’s 5 claims regarding his medical treatment and discrimination claims. The Court lacks jurisdiction 6 over Defendants for the purposes of ordering them to grant Plaintiff a particular number of hours 7 of access to the law library at his institution, and further lacks jurisdiction over any staff at CCWF 8 with the authority to grant such access. 9 To the extent Plaintiff argues that he continues to lack sufficient access to the law library 10 to litigate this action, he may file a motion, supported by good cause, seeking an extension of 11 time to meet a specific deadline. 12 II. Order and Recommendation 13 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary 14 injunction, (ECF No. 28), be DENIED. 15 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 16 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 17 (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 18 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 19 Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 20 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 21 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 22 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: November 10, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28