The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (ECF Nos. 37, 47, 49, 50)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (ECF No. 44, 45)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR 180 DAY EXTENSION OF TIME
Plaintiff Robert Gonzales Saenz ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the second amended complaint, filed January 14, 2010, against Defendant Reeves for violation of Plaintiff's rights under the First and Eighth Amendments. Currently pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief, motion for sanctions, and motion for 180 day extension of time.*fn1 (ECF No. 37, 44, 47, 49, 50, 52.)
Plaintiff's motion, filed May 3, 2011, alleges that he is suffering from retaliation by Mr. Rosenthal, who is the law librarian at Corcoran State Prison, and requests a court order requiring Mr. Rosenthal to provide adequate access and refrain from retaliation or removal of Mr. Rosenthal as the librarian. (ECF No. 37.) Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion on May 18, 2011, which included a declaration from Mr. Rosenthal stating that Plaintiff has not been denied access to the law library or retaliated against. (ECF No. 40.) Defendants argue that there is no evidence Plaintiff is being retaliated against by being required to follow established procedures.
On July 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion alleging that he is being retaliated against by Mr. Rosenthal and Correctional Officer Cabral. (ECF No. 47.) Plaintiff alleges that he is likely to suffer from additional acts of retaliation and requests a court order granting him single cell status, and for the law library to provide him with copies and supplies.
In the motion filed August 23, 2011, Plaintiff seeks relief from harsh treatment, harassment and cruel retaliatory punishment as reflected in his prior motions and seeks protective housing or single cell status. (ECF No. 49, 50.) Defendant filed an opposition to the motion on September 7, 2011, requesting the motion be denied for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 51.) Plaintiff filed a response on September 23, 2011, arguing that the Court does have jurisdiction to grant him the relief requested. (53.)
"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." Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 877 (9th Cir. 2009) quoting Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 374. An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
For each form of relief sought in federal court, Plaintiff must establish standing. Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.denied, 131 S. Ct. 503 (2010). This requires Plaintiff to "show that he is under threat of suffering 'injury in fact' that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury." Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 129 S. Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009) (citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969 (citation omitted).
In addition, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which provides in relevant part, "Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).
While Plaintiff argues that the Court has jurisdiction to grant him the requested relief, the case or controversy requirement cannot be met in light of the fact that the issues Plaintiff seeks to remedy in his motion bear no relation to the claims against Defendant Reeves for conduct that occurred while he was housed at Pleasant Valley State Prison. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102; 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); also Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 129 S. Ct. 1142, 1148-49 (2009); Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 102-04, 107. Because the case-or-controversy requirement cannot be met, ...