United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (DOC. 11)
K. OBERTO. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
filed a motion seeking injunctive relief to require that he
have “unobstructed, unhindered access to the courts and
(sic) provided the necessary court forms and other legal
papers, stationary, and legal size mailing envelopes,
physical law library access for legal research, photocopying
services and the right to assist other inmates with their
legal matters and court filings of documents, ” that
all retaliation and “acts of reprisal” against
him be prohibited, and that order issue for his immediate
transfer to California Men's Colony (“CMC”).
initial matter and as stated in the recently issued screening
order, Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim upon which
relief may be granted. Thus, there is no actual case or
controversy before the Court at this time and Court lacks the
jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff.
Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 129 S.Ct. 1142,
1149 (2009); Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d
1109, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009); 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A)).
If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy
before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question.
Id. Further, requests for prospective relief are
limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (a)(1)(A) of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court ensure
the 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.”
the pendency of this action does not give the Court
jurisdiction over prison officials in general or over
Plaintiff's litigation issues. Summers v. Earth
Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009);
Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th
Cir. 2010). The Court's jurisdiction is limited to the
parties in this action and to the cognizable legal claims
upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555
U.S. at 492-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. The Court
cannot order the California Department of Corrections to
transfer Plaintiff to another facility.
is not precluded from attempting to state cognizable claims
in a new action if he believes his civil rights are being
violated beyond his pleadings in this action. The issue is
not that Plaintiff's allegations are not serious, or that
Plaintiff is not entitled to relief if sought in the proper
forum. The seriousness of Plaintiff's accusations
concerning his ability to pursue legal matters on his own
behalf cannot and do not overcome what is a
jurisdictional bar. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at
103-04 (“[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and
redressability constitutes the core of Article III's
case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking
federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its
existence.”) This action is simply not the proper
vehicle for conveyance of the relief Plaintiff
seeks. However, the Litigation Office is
requested to look into the matter to facilitate
Plaintiff's access to writing materials provided for
indigent inmates as well as his access to the law library and
other legal resources to the extent necessary to allow
Plaintiff to pursue his pending legal actions.
the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that
Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief, filed on
November 28, 2016, (Doc. 11), be DENIED for
lack of jurisdiction; and the Clerk of the Court is directed
to forward a copy of this order and Plaintiff's motion to
the Litigation Office at California State Prison, Corcoran.
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)(1).
Within 30 days after being served
with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file
written objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The
document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to
file objections within the specified time may result in the
waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,
772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v.
Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
 Plaintiff's motion also fails to
make the requisite showing, supported by admissible evidence,
to obtain a preliminary injunction. Winter v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20-4, 129
S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008). However, it is not necessary to reach
the merits of Plaintiff's motions in light of the fact
that the jurisdictional issue is fatal to his requests for
relief. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493, 129 S.Ct. at 1149;
Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.
 How access is best facilitated in
light of Plaintiff's housing status and other custody or
classification factors is left to the sound ...