Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00599/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00599-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FELIPE GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. BITER, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-00599-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, 

AND DENYING MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Docs. 34, 35, 39, and 40)

Plaintiff Felipe Garcia, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 25, 2013. This action for damages is 

proceeding against Defendants Hernandez, Mosqueda, and Baker for violating Plaintiff’s 

constitutional rights at Kern Valley State Prison between June 2012 and January 2013. 

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On April 29, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued two Findings 

and Recommendations recommending Plaintiff’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion for 

injunctive relief be denied, with prejudice. Plaintiff filed a timely objection on May 13, 2015. 

Local Rule 304(b), (d). 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. This Court has no 

jurisdiction over state prison officials with respect to the mandamus relief sought by Plaintiff; the 

Case 1:13-cv-00599-LJO-SKO Document 44 Filed 05/28/15 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

pendency of this action provides no jurisdictional basis to issue an injunction addressing Plaintiff’s 

current conditions of confinement at a different institution than that where the relevant events 

occurred; and notwithstanding jurisdictional limitations, Plaintiff would not be entitled to either

form of extraordinary form. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); 28 U.S.C. § 1361; Winter v. Natural 

Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365 (2008) (preliminary injunction);

Stafford v. Briggs, 444 U.S. 527, 533-36, 100 S.Ct. 774 (1980) (mandamus); Lopez v. Brewer, 680 

F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (preliminary injunction); Alvarez v. Hill, 667 F.3d 1061, 1063-64 

(9th Cir. 2012) (injunctive relief); Johnson v. Reilly, 349 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003)

(mandamus); Nova Stylings, Inc. v. Ladd, 695 F.2d 1179, 1180 (9th Cir. 1983) (mandamus).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on April 29, 2015, are adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED, with prejudice; and

3. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief is DENIED, with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00599-LJO-SKO Document 44 Filed 05/28/15 Page 2 of 2