UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 2, 2012
HOMER TYRONE LEWIS,
DERRAL G. ADAMS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEGAL MATERIALS BE DENIED (DOC. 32) OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS
Plaintiff Homer Tyrone Lewis ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). 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 on Plaintiff's amended complaint against Defendants Adams, Junious, Lopez, Davis, and Morrison. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for the return of Plaintiff's confiscated legal materials, filed June 29, 2011. The Court treats the motion as one for preliminary injunction.
"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., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted). The purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo or to prevent irreparable injury pending the resolution of the underlying claim. Sierra On-line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984).
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, 471(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. 1983); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(listing persons bound by injunction).
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief for actions taken by Defendant Derral G. Adams and Maurice Junious at Corcoran State Prison, in allegedly depriving Plaintiff of his legal materials. Alleged denial of Plaintiff's legal materials is unrelated to the actual case or controversy before the Court of a retaliatory transfer and failure to protect. Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate irreparable in the absence of preliminary relief.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion, filed June 29, 2011, should be DENIED.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the Court. A party may respond to another party's objections within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the party's objections. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The parties are 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, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.