United States District Court, E.D. California
ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PLAINTIFF TO
PROCEED ON MEDICAL CLAIMS UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT AGAINST
DR. IGNIBINOZA, DR. SCHAREFENBERG, DR. KANDKHOROVA, DR.
UGWUEZE, AND DR. SUNDURAM; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
SCREENING; DISMISSING DEFENDANTS MAY AND ODLE AND ALL CLAIMS
AGAINST THEM; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WITHOUT PREJUDICE (DOCS. 20, 21, 22, 23,
24, 25, 28, 29)
Gardell Cowart, is a state prisoner proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was
referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
November 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for emergency
injunctive relief to obtain various forms of medical care.
(Doc. 20.) On November 22, 2016, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Findings and Recommendations (F&R) to deny
Plaintiff's motion for lack of jurisdiction as the action
had yet to be screened. (Doc. 21.) Though the F&R was
served that same date and allowed for their filing, Plaintiff
did not submit any objections. (Id.)
December 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed a new motion seeking court
order to direct the defendants in this action “to
correct all Constitutional violations of ‘deliberate
indifference' to Plaintiff's serious medical needs by
ordering medical care for him and transferring him to an
“intermediate medical facility.” (Doc. 22.)
February 9, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a F&R for
Plaintiff to proceed on medical claims under the Eighth
Amendment for deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs against Dr. Ignibinoza, Dr. Scharffenberg, Dr.
Kandkhorova, Dr. Ugwueze, and Dr. Sunduram and that all other
claims and defendants should be dismissed with prejudice.
(Doc. 23.) It was further recommended that
Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 22), be
denied for lack of jurisdiction over the CDCR facility and
those in control of deciding where he is housed.
(Id.) The F&R was served the next day and
allowed for Plaintiff to file objections within twenty-one
days. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file any objections.
February 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed yet another motion for
preliminary injunctive relief in which he requested an order
to stop retaliatory acts against him which were performed by
“Corcoran State Prison Staff of acting on behalf of
defendants” and/or “all defendants and/or
representatives of defendants.” (Doc. 25.) In this
motion, Plaintiff contends that, when he was removed from his
cell for transfer from CSATF to CIM, Correctional Officers A.
Sasin, R. Garcia, and K. Coffman wrongly confiscated his
television, beard trimmers, hotpot, and fan which Sergeant
Ibarra witnessed and condoned. (Id.)
March 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order to show
cause why injunctive relief should not be issued. Plaintiff
lists new defendants, i.e. defendants who were not named in
either the original complaint or the amended complaint, and
requests that prison medical personnel be required to provide
him with the medical care and treatment recommended by
outside medical specialists. (Doc. 28.)
April 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed what appears to be another
request for injunctive relief. (Doc. 29). Like the March 20
motion, this motion identifies individuals who were not named
in the original or first amended complaint, and requests that
prison personnel provide him with appropriate medical
stated in the February 9, 2017 F&R, the pendency of this
action does not give the Court general jurisdiction over all
prison officials, over every condition of Plaintiff's
confinement, or over every CDCR facility where petitioner may
be housed. “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) (emphasis
added); see also Summers v. Earth Island Institute,
555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009). Here, the individuals involved
with respect to February 27, March 20, and April 14, motions
are not parties to this action. The individuals were not
named in either the original or the first amended complaint.
Further, the individuals in the March 20 and April 14 motions
are at a separate institution. The facts surrounding the
original and the first amended complaints concern conduct
that occurred at a prison facility in Corcoran, California,
while the March 20 and April 14 motions concern events that
occurred at a prison facility in Chino, California, where
Plaintiff is currently housed. The Court cannot grant the
relief requested by Plaintiff in the February 27, March 20,
or April 14 motions. See id.
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo
review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire
file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations which
issued on November 22, 2016 and February 9, 2017 to be
supported by the record and by proper analysis.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Findings and Recommendations screening the First Amended
Complaint, filed on February 9, 2017 (Doc. 23), is adopted in
a. Plaintiff shall proceed on his claims in the First Amended
Complaint for deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs in violation of the Eight Amendment against Dr.
Ignibinoza, Dr. Scharffenberg, Dr. Kandkhorova, Dr. Ugwueze,
and Dr. Sunduram;
b. Defendants Correctional Counselor II T. May and Assistant
Warden B. Odle and all claims against them are ...