(PC) Goodbar v. Paldara ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBBIE GOODBAR, 1:21-cv-01811-ADA-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 13 vs. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED AS 14 PALDARA, et al., MOOT 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 25.) 16 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 17 18 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Robbie Goodbar (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 21 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 22 commencing this action on December 17, 2021. (ECF No. 1.) On November 16, 2022, Plaintiff 23 filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. (ECF No. 25.) 24 II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 25 Plaintiff requests a court order requiring California Department of Corrections and 26 Rehabilitation (CDCR) officials to cease placing non-sex offenders in cells with sex offenders. 27 He also requests a court order for CDCR to provide a phone number for inmates to call if they 28 are threatened, harassed, or intimidated by a CDCR employee or corrections officer. He also 1 requests that CDCR be ordered to provide two doses of Naloxone, the opiod reversal drug, to 2 every inmate in CDCR custody. 3 Preliminary Injunctive Relief 4 The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of 5 equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure 6 the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. 7 Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who 8 “demonstrates either (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable 9 harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.” 10 Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either 11 approach the plaintiff “must demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. Also, an 12 injunction should not issue if the plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the merits.” Id. At a 13 bare minimum, the plaintiff “must demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or questions 14 serious enough to require litigation.” Id. 15 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court 16 must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 17 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of 18 Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of Los 19 Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or 20 controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Thus, “[a] federal court 21 may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter 22 jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the 23 court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). 24 III. DISCUSSION 25 Plaintiff’s Complaint is based on allegations that when he was incarcerated at Pleasant 26 Valley State Prison, a CDCR facility in Coalinga, California, he was bullied and harassed by a 27 sex offender convict who was placed in the same cell as Plaintiff. Plaintiff is now detained at 28 Atascadero State Hospital in Atascadero, California, in the custody of the California Department 1 of State Hospitals. Initially, it is somewhat unclear whether Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary 2 injunctive relief concerns only CDCR officials at PVSP, or CDCR officials in general—further, 3 Plaintiff’s Complaint does not name CDCR as a defendant, but it does name the State of 4 California. Notwithstanding, for purposes of the following discussion this point need not be 5 addressed. 6 If Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is solely related to CDCR officials at PVSP, then 7 his request is moot as Plaintiff is no longer in custody at that institution.1 Where a prisoner is 8 challenging conditions of confinement and is seeking injunctive relief at a prison, transfer to 9 another facility renders the request for injunctive relief moot absent some evidence of an 10 expectation of being transferred back. See Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975); 11 Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam); see also Andrews v. 12 Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 n.5 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, there is no evidence that Plaintiff 13 expects to be transferred back to PVSP. Therefore, on this ground Plaintiff’s motion must be 14 denied as moot. 15 On the other hand, if Plaintiff’s request concerns CDCR in general, his request fails on 16 two additional grounds: (1) Plaintiff has not made an adequate showing of a significant threat of 17 irreparable injury; and (2) since the Court has yet to screen Plaintiff’s Complaint, service of the 18 complaint has not yet occurred and thus the Court lacks jurisdiction over CDCR to issue 19 Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. 20 Plaintiff argues that the risk of irreparable harm is high, because without the injunction, 21 the risk of further overdoses at CDCR resulting in death is high, and there are serious questions 22 about what an inmate can do when harassed and intimidated by a prison social worker or 23 correctional officer. However, Plaintiff has not shown that an injunction requiring CDCR to 24 change its procedures at all of its facilities would lessen any risk of harm for Plaintiff since 25 Plaintiff is not currently subject to CDCR’s authority. Although CDCR can remand state 26 prisoners to Atascadero State Hospital, the Hospital is under the authority of the California 27 1 On July 13, 2022, in Plaintiff’s case 2:22-cv-0006, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address to 28 Atascadero State Hospital. (Court Record.) 1 Department of State Hospitals, not CDCR.2 Moreover, any award of equitable relief is governed 2 by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which provides in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any 3 civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the 4 violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. (emphasis added.) The court 5 shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly 6 drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the 7 least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 8 3626(a)(1)(A). Here, an injunction affecting all prisoners in the custody of the CDCR is not 9 narrowly drawn relief. 10 Again, because the Complaint has not been screened by the Court there is no Complaint 11 in this case for which the Court has found cognizable claims against any defendant, and no 12 defendant has yet been served with process or appeared in this case. Therefore, the Court lacks 13 personal jurisdiction over any defendant, and further may not determine the rights of any party 14 not before the Court, including CDCR. Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727. 15 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief should be 16 denied. 17 IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 18 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for 19 preliminary injunctive relief, filed on November 16, 2022, be denied on the above stated grounds. 20 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 21 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 22 (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 23 written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 24 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 25 26 2 The Department of State Hospitals (DSH) is the current name for the state agency that 27 provides inpatient mental health hospital care for CDCR inmates. Coleman v. Brown, No. CIV. S-90- 520 LKK, 2013 WL 6071977, at *2, fn.4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2013). 28 1 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 2 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 3 (9th Cir. 1991)). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: November 29, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28