United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE
DENIED (ECF NO. 9.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN
S. AUSTIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Allen Van Gessel (“Plaintiff”) is a federal
prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to
Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on
October 26, 2018. (ECF No. 1.) On September 24, 2019, the
court screened the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and
issued an order requiring Plaintiff to either file a First
Amended Complaint, or notify the court that he is willing to
proceed only with the claims found cognizable by the court.
(ECF No. 8.) On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed the First
Amended Complaint, which awaits the court's screening.
(ECF No. 10.)
October 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order
requiring prison officials to maintain at least six
typewriters in the prison library. (ECF No. 9.) The court
construes Plaintiff's motion as a motion for preliminary
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never
awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Resources
Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365,
376 (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).
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, in considering
a request for 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, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983);
Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for
Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471,
102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the court does not have an
actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear
the matter in question. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102;
Valley Forge Christian Coll., 454 U.S. at 471. Thus,
“[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).
for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C.
§ 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act,
which requires that the Court find the “relief [sought]
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
requests the court to direct the Warden, his staff, and the
Bureau of Prisons to maintain at least six working
typewriters in the library at USP-Atwater where Plaintiff is
incarcerated. The purpose is to allow Plaintiff to use these
for his legal work. Plaintiff asserts that his life is more
miserable because he is forced to write everything by hand.
Plaintiff contends that the Code of Federal Regulations at 28
C.F.R. § 543.11(h) requires typewriters to be placed in
the library at each federal prison.
court however lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by
Plaintiff because the order would not remedy any of the
claims upon which this case proceeds. This case was filed
against defendants based on Plaintiff's allegations that
he was denied adequate medical care during events beginning
on March 12, 2018. Plaintiff now requests a court order for
officials at USP-Atwater to place typewriters in the library.
Because such an order would not remedy any of the claims in
this case, and because the court currently lacks jurisdiction
over the prison officials as they are not yet parties to this
action, Plaintiff's motion must be denied.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED
that Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive
relief, filed on October 7, 2019, be DENIED for lack of
findings and recommendations are 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
fourteen (14) days after the date of service
of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file
written objections with the court. Such a document should be
captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings
and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure
to file objections within the specified time may result in
the waiver of ...