Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01913/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01913-5/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

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

Plaintiff Michael Carmichael (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeding on the following cognizable 

claims: (1) violation of the First Amendment against Defendants Meyer, Pressley, Wilson and 

Marshall; (2) violation of RLUIPA against Defendants Aguilar, Meyer, Pressley, Wilson and 

Marshall; and (3) violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendants Meyer, Pressley and 

Marshall.

The action is currently in discovery.

On May 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a declaration in which he sets forth what he believes to be two 

instances of retaliation- one involving the denial of Priority Legal User status and the other relating to 

MICHAEL CARMICHAEL,

 Plaintiff,

v.

W. WILSON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12cv01913 LJO DLB (PC)

ORDER REGARDING 

PLAINTIFF’S DECLARATION

(Document 32)

Case 1:12-cv-01913-LJO-DLB Document 33 Filed 05/27/14 Page 1 of 2
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

nutritionally deficient meals. Plaintiff does not request relief, but rather asks the Court what motions 

should be filed to address the retaliation.

Generally, motions for injunctive relief can be used to request relief during the pendency of an 

action. However, Plaintiff is informed that the Court’s jurisdiction in granting injunctive relief is 

limited to the parties and claims involved in this action. See e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better 

Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998) (“[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.”) (citation omitted); 

American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Masto, 670 F.3d 1046, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(“[F]ederal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies.”) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

Plaintiff’s complaint arises from alleged deprivations under the First Amendment and 

Fourteenth Amendment related to his ability to practice his religion. The Defendants under the 

jurisdiction of this Court are Defendants Meyer, Pressley, Wilson, Marshall and Aguilar.

Therefore, Plaintiff should keep the limitations on injunctive relief in mind in deciding whether 

such a motion would be proper under the circumstances. If the events for which he requires assistance 

are not related to those in this action, Plaintiff may file a separate action when appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01913-LJO-DLB Document 33 Filed 05/27/14 Page 2 of 2