Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00519/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00519-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN ESPRITT, 

Plaintiff,

v.

A SAESEE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:11-cv-00519-AWI-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,

RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S

M O T I O N F O R P R E LIM I N A R Y

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED

(Doc. 21.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS

I. BACKGROUND

Brian Espritt (“Plaintiff”), a civil detainee at Atascadero State Hospital in Atascadero,

California, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on March 28, 2011. (Doc. 1.) 

On October 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 12.) On June 22, 2012,

the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to either file a Second Amended Complaint or notify

the Court of his willingness to proceed with the claims in the First Amended Complaint found

cognizable by the Court. (Doc. 15.) On July 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended

Complaint, bringing claims against correctional officers at the SATF for excessive force and

confiscation of personal property. (Doc. 17.)

On March 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, which is now

before the Court. (Doc. 21.) 

1

Case 1:11-cv-00519-AWI-SAB Document 23 Filed 03/07/13 Page 1 of 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

II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff has requested a court order directing the Kings County Jail to forward his personal

property to him at Atascadero State Prison. 

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff

seeking a preliminary injunction must establish 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.” Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An

injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376

(citation omitted) (emphasis added).

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary

injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before

it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660,

1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc.,

454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (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. Requests for prospective

relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which

requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary

to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the

violation of the Federal right.” 

Discussion

The order requested by Plaintiff would not remedy any of the claims upon which this action

proceeds. The defendants in this action are employees at SATF, and Plaintiff's allegations arose

from events occurring before March 28, 2011. Plaintiff now requests a court order requiring

employees at the Kern County Jail to return his property. Because such an order would not remedy

any of the claims upon which this action proceeds, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order

sought by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. “[A] federal court may [only] issue an

injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the

2

Case 1:11-cv-00519-AWI-SAB Document 23 Filed 03/07/13 Page 2 of 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

claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United

States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). 

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 

Based on the foregoing, THE COURT HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion

for preliminary injunctive relief, filed July 2, 2010, is DENIED.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections

with the Court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings

and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 7, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:11-cv-00519-AWI-SAB Document 23 Filed 03/07/13 Page 3 of 3