Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01240/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01240-3/pdf.json

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY A. FRANKLIN, Civil

No. 11cv1240 JAH (BGS)

Plaintiff, REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF U.S.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO DENY 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[ECF No. 52.]

v.

J. JIMENEZ, et al., 

Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 31, 2016, nunc pro tunc to May 26, 2016, Plaintiff pro se filed a motion for

Preliminary Injunction. [ECF No. 52.] After considering Plaintiff’s motion and exhibits in

support, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction

against non-party California State Prison, Los Angeles County, where he is currently

incarcerated, be DENIED for lack of standing and lack of jurisdiction over California

State Prison, Los Angeles County. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In order to demonstrate the need for preliminary injunctive relief, a party must show

“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.” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 571 F.3d 960, 978 (9th Cir.

2009) (quoting Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 55 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008)). 

1 11cv1240 JAH (BGS)

Case 3:11-cv-01240-JAH-BGS Document 58 Filed 08/09/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
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

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s motion seeks to have the Court order the California State Prison in

Lancaster to stop delaying, destroying, taking or withholding his legal mail. [ECF No. 52

at pp.1-2.] However, the instant lawsuit, which alleges retaliation against Plaintiff by

officers Ramos, Hughey, Maciel and Jimenez as well as nurses Garcia and Molina - all of

whom work at Calipatria State Prison (“Calipatria”) in Calipatria - does not give the Court

jurisdiction over a different prison or different prison officials in general who are not

parties to this action. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009);

Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The California State Prison

in Lancaster is not a Defendant here. Because the Court's jurisdiction is limited to the

parties in this action (officers and nurses at Calipatria) and to the retaliation claims upon

which this action is predicated, Plaintiff’s motion must fail and cannot proceed on the

merits for lack of jurisdiction over California State Prison. Id.

Moreover, Plaintiff has also failed to establish he is likely to succeed on the merits

of the requested injunctive relief because he lacks standing to bring an access to

courts/interference with legal mail claim in this action. Specifically, to the extent Plaintiff

is seeking a court order directing California State Prison to stop mishandling his legal

mail, he must first establish standing for each form of relief sought in federal court. 

Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. This requires Plaintiff to “show that he is under threat of

suffering ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and

imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to challenged

conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will

prevent or redress the injury.” Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 

However, the injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff is not related to the underlying

retaliation, deliberate indifference and due process claims he has alleged against

defendants at a totally different institution. (See Second Amended Complaint, ECF No.

2 11cv1240 JAH (BGS)

Case 3:11-cv-01240-JAH-BGS Document 58 Filed 08/09/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
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

21.) Since the relief sought would not remedy the violation of the Federal rights at issue

in the present action, the Court cannot grant the requested relief and Plaintiff’s request for

a court order enjoining the California State Prison from interference with legal mail is

denied.1

 

Finally, the Court notes that since he has been at California State Prison, Plaintiff

has been able to mail and file a Second Amended Complaint, several extension requests

which were granted, an opposition to a motion to dismiss, a motion for discovery and a

motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 19, 21, 32, 34, 36, & 43.) Therefore, it

appears Plaintiff has been able to successfully mail his legal submissions to this Court

despite the alleged disappearance of an order in 2012 and briefing schedules dated March

10, 2016 and March 28, 2016. (See Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 52. at p. 6.) It should

also be noted that the Court re-sent a copy of the briefing schedules to Plaintiff once it was

notified that he did not receive the documents. (ECF No. 50 - Order Granting Motion for

Copy of Briefing Schedule.) Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s

Motion for Preliminary Injunction be DENIED.

IV. CONCLUSION

This report and recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate Judge is submitted

to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provision of 28

U.S.C. section 636(b)(1). Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion

for Preliminary Injunction be DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that no later than August 19, 2016 any party to this action may

file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should

be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

///

///

///

1

To the extent Plaintiff may or may not have an access-to-courts claim against individuals at the

California State Prison, in Lancaster, he would have to bring those claims in a separate action after

he properly exhausted his administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. 

3 11cv1240 JAH (BGS)

Case 3:11-cv-01240-JAH-BGS Document 58 Filed 08/09/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with

the Court and served on all parties by August 26, 2016.

DATED: August 9, 2016

Hon. Bernard G. Skomal

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

4 11cv1240 JAH (BGS)

Case 3:11-cv-01240-JAH-BGS Document 58 Filed 08/09/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4