Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00069/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00069-5/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:08-cv-00069-LJO-SMS-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DENIAL OF

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ADD THREE

NEW DEFENDANTS

(Doc. 10.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 Plaintiff Mark Jones , is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on December 5, 2007, by

plaintiffs Mark Jones and Christine Jones at the United States District Court for the Northern District

of California. On January 7, 2008, the case was transferred to the Eastern District of California and

received at this court on January 14, 2008. (Doc. 1.) On September 16, 2008, the court issued an

order severing the two plaintiffs’ claims and ordering the clerk to open a new case for plaintiff

Christine Jones. (Doc. 11.) As a result, plaintiff Mark Jones (“plaintiff”) proceeds as the only

plaintiff in this action.

On September 2, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for the court to issue a protective order, make

an investigation into staff misconduct, hold an evidentiary hearing, grant plaintiff leave to add three

Case 1:08-cv-00069-LJO-MJS Document 12 Filed 09/19/08 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

2

new defendants to this action, issue an order to show cause, and issue an order for the return of

plaintiff’s legal property, cassette player, adapter and hot pot.

II. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of equities

so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure the positions

until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S.

390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who “demonstrates either (1)

a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious

questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.” Arcamuzi v. Continental Air

Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either approach the plaintiff “must

demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. Also, an injunction should not issue if the

plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the merits.” Id. At a bare minimum, the plaintiff “must

demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.”

Id.

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, 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); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d

1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has

no power to hear the matter in question. Id. 

This action is proceeding against defendants for violations of plaintiff’s rights under the

Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, based on events occurring during a visit to the prison

by plaintiff’s wife on September 14, 2007. Plaintiff now requests a court order protecting him from

threats, intimidation, and retaliation for filing prison grievances. Plaintiff also requests an

investigation and an evidentiary hearing regarding recent staff misconduct. In addition, plaintiff

requests the return of his property taken by prison staff. Because these orders would not remedy any

of the claims upon which this action proceeds, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue the orders sought

by plaintiff, and plaintiff’s requests must be denied. 

Case 1:08-cv-00069-LJO-MJS Document 12 Filed 09/19/08 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

3

III. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ADD DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff also requests leave to add three new defendants to this action based on events

occurring in August 2008. Plaintiff is cautioned that he may not add new and unrelated claims that

arose after this suit was filed. Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[n]o action

shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal

law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative

remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion must occur prior to

filing suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). The section 1997e(a)

exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S.

516, 532 (2002), and “[a]ll ‘available’ remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies need not

meet federal standards, nor must they be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.’” Porter, 534 U.S. at 524

(citing to Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 n.5 (2001)). Prisoners must complete the prison’s

administrative process, regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief

offered by the process, as long as the administrative process can provide some sort of relief on the

complaint stated. Booth, 532 U.S. at 741.

In a “conflict between Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and the PLRA, the rule would have

to yield to the later-enacted statute to the extent of the conflict.” Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 982

(11th Cir. 2000). Rule 15 “does not and cannot overrule a substantive requirement or restriction

contained in a statute (especially a subsequently enacted one).” Id. at 983; see also Cox v. Mayer,

332 F.3d 422, 428 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Harris for this proposition with favor). Allowing plaintiff

to pursue new claims would allow plaintiff to thwart the mandate of section 1997e(a), which requires

that claim exhaustion occur prior to filing suit and not during the pendency of the suit. McKinney,

311 F.3d at 1199-1201. 

Plaintiff wishes to add claims which accrued in August 2008, which is after the date plaintiff

commenced this action. Therefore, plaintiff may not pursue these claims in the present action, and

plaintiff’s request to add defendants must be denied. 

///

///

Case 1:08-cv-00069-LJO-MJS Document 12 Filed 09/19/08 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

4

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunctive relief and motion for leave to add new defendants, filed September 2, 2008,

be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendations will be 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 (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The 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: September 19, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00069-LJO-MJS Document 12 Filed 09/19/08 Page 4 of 4