Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-00487/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-00487-2/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

- 1 - 03CV0487

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL H. GOVIND,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 03CV0487-LAB (RBB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

vs. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

LT. W.R. ADAMS, C.O. C. SIMS, THE

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Defendants.

On November 15, 2006, Plaintiff, an inmate at High Desert State Prison, filed a document

styled “Amended Pretrial Disclosure And Injunctive Relieve” [sic]. In fact, this document appears

to argue about pretrial disclosures already made, after which Plaintiff raises or renews several issues

previously dealt with.

Plaintiff renews his motion for appointment of counsel he filed on November 2, 2006, and an

ex parte application for a temporary restraining order he filed on November 8, 2006, which the Court

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on November 15, 2006. Plaintiff attempts to re-raise several other

issues that were previously disposed of, and which were also mentioned in his notice of appeal. For

reasons stated in the Court’s November 15 order, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant these motions

or to reconsider issues it previously decided.

Plaintiff also includes a paragraph requesting injunctive relief in the form of an injunction

prohibiting Defendants from retaliating against him and ordering Plaintiff transferred to a different

Case 3:03-cv-00487-LAB-RBB Document 155 Filed 11/22/06 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 - 03CV0487

facility. Plaintiff has not adequately explained on what basis the Court can or should grant this

request, or why the Court would have jurisdiction over it.

Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is unsupported by factual allegations; thus, the Court

cannot tell whether it is based on matters forming the basis of Plaintiff’s notice of appeal. If so, the

Court would lack jurisdiction over it. Donovan v. Mazzola, 761 F.2d 1411, 1414 (9th Cir. 1985).

Even if the Court had jurisdiction, it is unclear why the Court could or should grant injunctive relief.

Defendant Adams was dismissed as a party on August 29, 2006, so at this point only

Defendant Sims remains. After reviewing the exhibits Plaintiff has attached regarding Plaintiff’s

request for a transfer, the Court detects no mention of Defendant Sims. The documents do mention

fellow inmates that Plaintiff believes threaten his safety, but note that prison officials are taking steps

to protect him from known enemies he may have at that facility. Furthermore, according to

information Plaintiff has provided to the Court, Defendant Sims is not employed at High Desert State

Prison, so it is unclear how he might be retaliating against Plaintiff.

With regard to the transfer claim, no party with the power to transfer Plaintiff is a party to this

action. With limited exceptions not applicable here, this Court lacks authority to issue an injunction

directed at an entity that is not a party before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395

U.S. 100, 112 (1969).

 As the party invoking the Court’s jurisdiction, Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that

jurisdiction exists. Morris v. U.S., 521 F.2d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 1975). Because he has filed to do so,

his application for injunctive relief, and all other requests contained in the document filed on

November 15, 2006 are DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 22, 2006

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-00487-LAB-RBB Document 155 Filed 11/22/06 Page 2 of 2