Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Doe v. Campos

September 27, 2010

JOHN DOE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JULIO CAMPOS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS (DOCS. 21, 50, 51, 53, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75, 82, 84)

Plaintiff John Doe*fn1 ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding only against Defendant Julio Campos for violation of the Eighth Amendment.*fn2 Pending before the Court are:

1) Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, filed July 29, 2009; 2) Plaintiff's Motion Ordering U.S. Marshal to personally serve Defendants Campos, Acosta, Trinh, and Syed, filed March 4, 2010; 3) Motion to Amend the Complaint regarding S. Bindler, filed March 12, 2010; 4) Plaintiff's motion ordering Defendant Tilton to serve Plaintiff at his current address, filed March 12, 2010; 5) Plaintiff's motion to file supplemental pleadings, filed May 25, 2010; 6) Plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint, filed May 25, 2010; 7) Plaintiff's motion for order directing U.S. Marshals to effect service of process, filed May 25, 2010; 8) Plaintiff's motion for leave to serve additional interrogatories on Defendant Trinh, filed July 20, 2010; 9) Plaintiff's motion to compel, filed July 27, 2010; 10) Plaintiff's motion to compel, filed September 8, 2010; and 11) Plaintiff's motion to compel, filed September 14, 2010.

I. Motion For Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiff seeks specific treatment for his Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. (Pl.'s Mot. Prelim. Inj., Doc. 21.) As stated in the Court's order dismissing Defendants Tilton, Syed, Trinh, and Chief of Psychiatric Services from this action, Plaintiff fails to state a claim regarding the mental health treatment he received. Plaintiff's amended complaint indicates that he was provided with mental health treatment for his depression and anxiety.

"A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is 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 in the public interest." Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (citations omitted).

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 47 (1982). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102. Thus, "[a] federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court." Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985).

Because Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim regarding his mental health was dismissed from this action with prejudice, there is no case or controversy before this Court regarding mental health treatment. Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction to impose a preliminary injunction for PTSD treatment. Plaintiff's motion is denied.

II. First Motion For Service of Process

Plaintiff requests that the Court order the United States Marshal to personally serve Defendants Campos, Acosta, Trinh, and Syed. This request is denied as to all Defendants.

Defendants Acosta, Trinh, and Syed are no longer Defendants in this action. As to Defendant Campos, the Court will require Plaintiff to provide further information to assist the United States Marshal in effecting service of process. Where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint, the Court's sua sponte dismissal of the unserved defendants is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994), abrogated in part on other grounds, Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for service of process is denied.

III. Motion To Amend Regarding S. Bindler

Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to include additional allegations that S. Bindler prematurely cancelled a PTSD group, of which Plaintiff was actually a member. This would not change the Court's determination that Plaintiff fails to state a claim for deprivation of mental health treatment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Though Plaintiff may not have received specific PTSD treatment, he did receive treatment for his depression and anxiety. S. Bindler's cancellation of the PTSD group does ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.