(PC) Garcia v. Baniga

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 JOSE GARCIA, 1:19-cv-01258-AWI-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 13 vs. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED 14 U. BANIGA, et al., OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 14 15 Defendants. DAYS — 16 — 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Jose Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing 20 this action on September 10, 2019 (ECF No. 1.) The court screened the Complaint under 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915A and issued an order on September 23, 2019, requiring Plaintiff to respond 22 within thirty days by either filing an amended complaint or notifying the court that he is willing 23 to proceed only against defendant, Dr. Rodriguez, on Plaintiff’s medical claim found 24 cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 8.) 25 In the prayer of the Complaint, Plaintiff requests the court to “[g]rant injunction 26 mandating that the Defendants provide effective and adequate and speedy medical care for 27 Plaintiff’s medical conditions (surgery specialists for hernia removal).” (ECF No. 1 at 13.) 28 Also, Plaintiff titles the Complaint “an emergency action, based upon the chronic and urgency 1 of Plaintiff’s medical condition regarding Plaintiff’s injunctive demand.” (ECF No. 1 at 1.) 2 Based on the urgency of Plaintiff’s requests, the court construes Plaintiff request as a motion 3 for preliminary injunctive relief. 4 II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 5 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” 6 Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 , 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) 7 (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely 8 to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 9 preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the 10 public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear 11 showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted). 12 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, in considering a request for 13 injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have 14 before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 , 103 15 S.Ct. 1660 , 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church 16 and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 , 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the Court does not have an 17 actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Lyons, 461 18 U.S. at 102; Valley Forge Christian Coll., 454 U.S. at 471 . Thus, “[a] federal court may issue 19 an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter 20 jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the 21 court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). 22 Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. ' 3626(a)(1)(A) of the 23 Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the Arelief [sought] is narrowly 24 drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the 25 least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.@ 26 Discussion 27 Plaintiff requests a court order requiring Defendants to provide him with immediate 28 medical care. At this stage of the proceedings the court awaits Plaintiff’s response to the 1 court’s screening order, and therefore there is no complaint on file in this case with which to 2 proceed. The court therefore cannot opine that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his 3 claims. Furthermore, no defendants have yet appeared in this action and the court does not 4 have jurisdiction to order injunctive relief which would require directing individuals not before 5 the Court to take action. Zepeda v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 6 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction 7 over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine 8 the rights of persons not before the court.”). 9 Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. Plaintiff is not precluded from renewing 10 the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. 11 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff=s motion 13 for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on September 10, 2019, be DENIED, without prejudice. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(l). Within fourteen 16 (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 17 written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 18 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 19 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 20 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391 , 1394 21 (9th Cir. 1991)). — 22 — IT IS SO ORDERED. — 23 — 24 Dated: September 27, 2019 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —