(PC) Andrew v. United States ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NORVELL ANDREW, Case No.: 1:22-cv-01290-KES-CDB 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR 13 v. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., (Docs. 30 & 33) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Norvell Andrew is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action. 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 On March 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Order to Show Cause for a 21 Preliminary Injunction & Temporary Restraining Order” in which Plaintiff requested various 22 forms of injunctive relief relating to her medical care. (Doc. 25.) On March 26, 2024, the 23 undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations to the motion. (Doc. 28.) Those findings 24 remain pending and will be considered by District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff in due course. 25 On April 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Preliminary Injunction TRO 65” 26 (Doc. 30) and on May 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Preliminary Injunction TRO 27 Rule 65” (Doc. 33). 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 The Motion Filed April 10, 2024 (Doc. 30) 3 Plaintiff’s motion states she “just filed an amended complaint adding several defendants 4 including DSCC administrator unknown.” (Doc. 30 at 1.) Plaintiff contends she has “again been 5 designated to another active prison USP Beaumont where [she] cannot walk and will eventually 6 have to sign on protective custody by DSCC staff.” (Id.) She states she has repeatedly written to 7 DSCC staff and an administrator yet she “is constantly being sent to active prisons even though 8 DSCC knows Plaintiff is a snitch and transgender.” (Id.) Plaintiff seeks to be “redesignated to a 9 low in FCC Yazoo,” “to be safe,” the appointment of counsel,1 a hearing on the merits of the 10 motion, 2 and any other relief the Court deems fit. (Id. at 1-2.) 11 The Motion Filed May 3, 2024 (Doc. 33) 12 Plaintiff contends she is constantly being placed in imminent danger “by being housed 13 around active Mickey Cobra/Vice Lord and or South Cal members.” (Doc. 33 at 1.) She asserts 14 she has repeatedly written to the “DSCC administrator seeking to be housed at a protective 15 custody prison” or to have her “points corrected” without success. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that 16 because “all requests have been denied or ignored,” she is “constantly being placed on active 17 yards even after being assaulted repeatedly and signing on protective custody” at nearly every 18 prison she has been assigned to. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks to have her “points fixed and to be housed at 19 the proper custody level,” “protection from all active Mickey Cobra, Vice Lord, Latin King, 20 Black Stone & South Cal gang members,” a hearing on the motion, and other relief deemed 21 appropriate. (Id.) 22 The Applicable Legal Standards 23 As Plaintiff was previously advised in the Findings and Recommendations issued March 24 26, 2024: 25 1 Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel was denied in the Court’s March 26, 2024, order. (See Doc. 28 at 26 4-7.) The Court will not revisit the request here as Plaintiff fails to offer any new or additional basis for the request, nor does Plaintiff make any attempt to meet the applicable legal standards for the appointment of counsel. 27 2 This Court’s Local Rule 230(l) provides that motions in prisoner actions “shall be submitted upon the record 1 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 2 (2008) (citation omitted). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is 3 likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is 4 in the public interest.” Id. at 20. 5 A “federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the 6 claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). 7 “[A]n injunction must be narrowly tailored ‘to affect only those persons over which it has power,’ . . . and to remedy only the specific 8 harms shown by the plaintiffs, rather than ‘to enjoin all possible breaches of the law.’” Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 9 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727, 728 n.1). Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court 10 jurisdiction to enjoin non-parties based on conduct unrelated to the suit sub judice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) (an injunction may bind 11 only the parties, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and other persons “in active concert or participation” with 12 those persons). In other words, the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which 13 this action is proceeding. Id. 14 Separately, the injunctive relief sought must be related to the claims brought in the complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. 15 Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015) (“When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the 16 complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.”). In other words, “there must be a relationship between 17 the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint.” Id. at 636 (adopting Devose v. 18 Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994)). Absent a nexus between the injury claimed in the motion and the underlying 19 complaint, the Court lacks the authority to grant Plaintiff injunctive relief. Id. A preliminary injunction only is appropriate when it grants 20 relief of the same nature as that to be finally granted. Id. (citing De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)). 21 22 (Doc. 28 at 2-3.) 23 Analysis 24 As reflected on the Court’s docket and in Plaintiff’s most recent motion, she is presently 25 housed at the United States Penitentiary in Beaumont, Texas. (See Docs. 32-34.) Plaintiff’s 26 pending motions both involve that facility — a location outside of the Court’s jurisdiction 27 because Plaintiff’s claims in this action involve defendants employed at the United States 1 To the extent Plaintiff's April 10, 2024, motion indicates she filed an amended complaint 2 | naming additional defendants that involve officials at the Beaumont, Texas federal penitentiary, 3 | as noted in the Court’s Second Screening Order issued May 6, 2024, the amended complaint 4 | lodged on March 22, 2024, was stricken by Court because it included new or additional claims 5 | unrelated to the claims originally asserted; such claims must be brought in a separate action and 6 | may not be asserted in this action. (See Doc. 35 at 1-2, 18.) Again, Plaintiff's original and first 7 | amended complaint involve defendants employed at the facility in Atwater, California. New 8 | claims against officials at other federal prison facilities may not be properly brought in this 9 | action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 & 20. Therefore, as before, the Court does not have personal or 10 | subject matter jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief. Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th 11 | Cir. 1983); Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 12 | 2015). As aresult, the Court will recommend Plaintiff's motions be denied. 13 I. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 14 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs 15 | motions for injunctive relief (Docs. 30 & 33) be DENIED. 16 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the district judge assigned to 17 || this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days of the date of service of these 18 | Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the Court. The 19 | document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 20 | Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 21 | rights 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. "| Dated: _May 29, 2024 | Wr Pr 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28