Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01934/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01934-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

EVARISTUS MACKEY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01934-BAM (PC)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR FEDERAL 

INTERVENTION

(ECF No. 11)

Plaintiff Evaristus Mackey (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this

civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of 

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). On March 16, 2016, Plaintiff 

filed a notice of change of address and a request for federal invention. (ECF No. 11). He 

informed the Court that he is now housed at USP Lewisburg, and, importantly, alleges that there 

have been some fights, stabbings, and assaults at the institution, and that he was told some staff 

arranged for him to be stabbed. He states he believes this has been done in retaliation for him 

filing a lawsuit against the Bureau of Prisons. He contends that his life is in imminent danger, 

and he requests immediate injunctive relief, specifically federal intervention by the FBI. 

The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as one that seeks a preliminary injunction. “A

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, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008) 

(citation omitted). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to 

Case 1:15-cv-01934-LJO-BAM Document 12 Filed 03/18/16 Page 1 of 3
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

succeed on the merits, among other things. 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).

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court 

must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 

102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for 

Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982). 

If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the 

matter in question. Id. 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 and 

Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir.1983); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) (listing persons 

bound by injunction).

The Court takes Plaintiff's assertions seriously, but lacks jurisdiction to issue the relief 

requested. Plaintiff has not identified the persons who have threatened to harm him, other than to 

state they are staff at USP Lewisburg. His suit is against prison officials at his former institution, 

and thus no officials at USP Lewisburg are defendants in this action. Thus, the case or 

controversy requirement cannot be met since the people Plaintiff seeks to enjoin are not parties 

to this action, and the pendency of this case provides no basis upon which to award him any

injunctive relief. The seriousness of Plaintiff’s allegations concerning feared impending harm 

cannot and do not overcome what is a jurisdictional bar. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better 

Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 103-104 (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.”)

To the extent Plaintiff believes he is in danger, he has other avenues of relief available to 

him, including filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. E.g., Smith v. Anderson, 317 F.2d 172, 

172 (D.C. Cir. 1963). 

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-01934-LJO-BAM Document 12 Filed 03/18/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for federal intervention, 

construed as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, is DENIED, with prejudice, for lack of 

jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01934-LJO-BAM Document 12 Filed 03/18/16 Page 3 of 3