UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 11, 2011
ERIC LUNSFORD, ET AL.,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DEADLINE THIRTY DAYS
Jesus Estevez ("Plaintiff') is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 14, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requesting that officials at the High Dessert State Prison be required to provide him expanded access to his legal materials and the law library. (Doc. 16.). Plaintiff is currently housed at Salinas Valley State Prison. (Doc. 20).
"A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right." Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). "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." Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). As a court of limited jurisdiction, the Court is bound by the requirement that it has before it an actual case or controversy before considering a request for preliminary injunctive relief. 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, 471 (1982). Furthermore, the Court must have personal jurisdiction over the parties in order to issue an injunction against any individual and the Court may not enjoin individuals who are not yet served or before the court. Zepeda v. United States I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983).
The pendency of this action does not provide a basis for Plaintiff to obtain a court order directing he be provided with greater access to his legal materials or the law library. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and claims in this action. Jurisdiction does not extend to the issuance of orders that will not remedy the claims at issue in this action. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). Moreover, Plaintiff has made no showing that he is being prevented from accessing specific legal documents that he has immediate need for at this stage in the litigation. Since the allegations in Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief suggests a remedy by enjoining individuals that are not a part of this action, the Court does not have jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief. See Zepeda v. United States I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983); City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). Moreover, as Plaintiff has been transferred after filing his request for injunctive relief, his request is moot.
Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on September 14, 2010, be DENIED, with prejudice.
It is ordered that this finding and recommendation be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within THIRTY (30) DAYS after being served with the finding and recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Finding and Recommendation." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
0jh02o UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.