United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR TRANSFER
(ECF NO. 39.) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE TO FILE AMENDED
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Â§ 1983. On June 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for
extension of time to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 39.)
Plaintiff also seeks a Court order transferring him to
another prison facility. (Id.)
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
requests an extension of time to file an amended complaint,
pursuant to the Court’s order of May 18, 2015 (ECF No.
19). Plaintiff claims that his personal property was taken
from him by prison officials and only some of it was
returned. Plaintiff asserts that he does not have his law
books, leisure books, some of his legal paperwork,
toothbrush, toothpaste, palmbrush, dental floss, soups, soap,
has not shown good cause for another extension of time.
Plaintiff has not explained why he needs all of his missing
property, or even some of his missing property, to prepare
and file an amended complaint. The Court offered Plaintiff
guidance in the May 18, 2015 screening order, instructing him
to file an amended complaint clearly stating, in his own
words, what happened to violate his rights. Plaintiff was
advised to name each individual defendant by name, describe
where that defendant is employed and in what capacity, and
explain how that defendant acted to violate his rights.
Plaintiff was also advised that he does not need to set forth
legal argument or evidence at this stage of the litigation.
Plaintiff has not explained why he cannot follow the
Court’s instructions without access to his missing
Plaintiff has had ample time to file an amended complaint.
Plaintiff has been granted multiple extensions of time, and
more than a year has passed since the Court ordered Plaintiff
to file the amended complaint.
Court is inclined to deny Plaintiff’s motion for
extension of time. However, in an abundance of caution, the
Court shall allow Plaintiff one last extension of time to
file an amended complaint. Plaintiff shall be granted thirty
days from the date of this order in which to comply with the
Court’s May 18, 2015 screening order. No further
extensions of time shall be granted without a showing of good
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
requests a Court order transferring him to another prison.
The Court construes Plaintiff’s request as a motion for
preliminary injunctive relief.
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).
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
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Kern Valley State
Prison (KVSP) in Delano, California, and seeks a Court order
requiring officials at KVSP to transfer him to another prison
facility of his choosing. Plaintiff requests “judicial
override for transfer to either a federal prison (such as
Lompoc) or to Lancaster or Donovan or (CHCF) Stockton Medical
Facility. . .” (ECF No. 39 at 1.)
Court lacks jurisdiction in this case to require prison
officials at KVSP to transfer Plaintiff, because none of the
KVSP officials are defendants in this case. “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 Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir.
1985). Therefore, Plaintiffs request for transfer must be
based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Plaintiff is GRANTED one last extension of time until thirty
days from the date of service of this order, to file an
amended complaint in compliance with the ...