United States District Court, E.D. California
MONICO J. QUIROGA, III, Plaintiff,
DONNY YOUNGBLOOD, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR FEDERAL OVERSIGHT ENFORCED BY
ATTORNEY GENERAL (ECF NO. 15) FOURTEEN (14) DAY
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Monico J. Quiroga, III (“Plaintiff”) is a state
prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
initiated this action on January 3, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) On
July 11, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued Findings
and Recommendations recommending that this action be
dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. (ECF
No. 13.) Plaintiff timely filed objections on July 24, 2017,
(ECF No. 14), and those Findings and Recommendations are
currently pending before the assigned District Judge.
before the Court are Plaintiff's “Motion for
Federal Oversight Enforced by Attorney General” and
Notice of Appeal, both filed on July 24, 2017. (ECF Nos. 15,
Notice of Appeal
states that he appeals to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit “from the final judgment from an
order in Eastern District of Cali entered in this action on
the 10 day of 7, 2017.” (ECF No. 16.) Although
Plaintiff references a final order, it appears Plaintiff is
referring to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendations signed on July 10, 2017, and docketed on July
11, 2017. (See ECF No. 13.) As discussed above,
those Findings and Recommendations are currently pending
before the assigned District Judge, and no final order has
been entered in this action. Therefore, the Court will treat
Plaintiff's appeal as an interlocutory appeal.
there is an interlocutory appeal pending, the Court is not
divested of jurisdiction to address the pending motion for
federal oversight. See United States v. Pitner, 307
F.3d 1178, 1183 n.5 (9th Cir. 2002) (filing of interlocutory
appeal “does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction
over aspects of the case that are not the subject of the
appeal”) (citing Plotkin v. Pac. Tel. & Tel.
Co., 688 F.2d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 1982)). The
interlocutory appeal apparently relates solely to the
Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations
recommending dismissal of this action for failure to state a
claim, not to the instant motion for federal oversight.
Motion for Federal Oversight
moves for “Federal Oversight enforced by Attorney
General pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997 for investigation
into Death of Pretrial detainee Negligence resulting in Death
Sept. 26, 2015.” (ECF No. 15.) The Court will construe
the motion as one seeking a preliminary injunction.
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never
awarded as of right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted).
“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.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An
injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the
plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation
omitted). In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions
of confinement, any preliminary injunction “must be
narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct
the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be
the least intrusive means necessary to correct the
harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
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
L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101-02 (1983); Valley
Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church
& 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.
Additionally, district courts lack the authority to issue an
injunction directed at an entity or individual that is not a
party before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine
Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969); Zepeda v.
U.S. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983).