UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 6, 2013
ISABEL TUBACH, PLAINTIFF,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION (Docs. 3, 6, 9, 11) FIFTEEN - DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE
Plaintiff, Isabel Tubach ("Plaintiff"), is a state prisoner who is currently proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on July 20, 2012. (Doc. 1.) By separate order, Plaintiff's Complaint was dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim for violation of her federal rights.
Plaintiff has filed four motions for temporary restraining orders that are currently before the Court: (1) on July 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order against Defendant M. Guzman (Doc. 3, 1st TRO, pp. 2-3, 7); (2) on August 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting "a T.R.O." (Doc. 6, 2nd TRO, pg. 1); (3) on October 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting "a T.R.O. against Defendant M. Guzman" (Doc. 9, 3rd TRO, pg. 1); and (4) on January 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting "a temporary order to restraining the Defendant, C/O M. Guzman" (Doc. 11, 4th TRO, pg. 1).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 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. Id. The case or controversy requirement cannot be met in light of the fact that Plaintiff's Complaint has been dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for violation of any of her Federal rights.
Further, even if Plaintiff had stated a claim such that jurisdiction wasn't a bar, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) provides in relevant part:
[p]rospective 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.
All of Plaintiff's motions ramble regarding many of the same situations complained of in her pleading. None of Plaintiff's motions delineate specifically what relief she seeks other than that she wants a "T.R.O. against" Defendant Guzman. Such generalities are simply not narrowly drawn to satisfy the requirements for issuing temporary restraining orders.
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's motions for temporary restraining orders be denied. *fn1
These Findings and Recommendations will 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 fifteen (15) days
after being served with these Findings and Recommendations,
Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document
should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the
District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.
IT IS SO ORDERED.