Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00084/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00084-3/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

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

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

I. Background

Plaintiff Ricardo Martinez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on 

October 23, 2015 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 

1.) The matter was transferred to this Court on January 15, 2016, and received on January 20, 2016. 

(ECF No. 10.)

II. Motion to Compel Prison Officials

On August 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Court to permit to “force officials to 

comply with 602 appeals timelines and to process appeals properly.” (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff explained 

that he is currently incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison and argued that the authorities there have a 

RICARDO MARTINEZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D. DAVEY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00084-LJO-BAM (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL OFFICIALS TO PROCESS 

APPEALS PROPERLY AND 602 APPEAL 

TIMELINES

(ECF No. 22)

Case 1:16-cv-00084-LJO-BAM Document 24 Filed 08/09/16 Page 1 of 4
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

pattern of failing to process appeals properly. Plaintiff attached over a hundred pages of appealsrelated documents to his motion, including copies of appeals, response to appeals, and correspondence

with prison officials regarding appeals. The date ranges span from mid-2015 to more recent dates in 

2016. The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a request for a temporary restraining order and 

preliminary injunction against the prison officials at Corcoran State Prison. 

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. Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 

395, 101 S. Ct. 1830, 68 L. Ed. 2d 175 (1981). “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.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365, 

374, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008). “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, 

one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of 

persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972, 117 S. Ct. 1865, 138 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1997) 

(quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

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. Lyons, 

461 U.S. at 102. 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 Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 

(9th Cir.1985).

The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in 

general. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 491–93, 129 S. Ct. 1142, 173 L. Ed. 2d 1 

(2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir.2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is 

Case 1:16-cv-00084-LJO-BAM Document 24 Filed 08/09/16 Page 2 of 4
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

limited to the parties in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. 

Summers, 555 U.S. at 491–93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 

Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction ordering prison 

officials to process appeals in a certain manner. However, Plaintiff has not met the requirements for 

this relief. The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s 

complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state 

a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In this matter, 

Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened to determine whether it states a cognizable claim. No

defendant has been ordered served and no defendant has yet made an appearance. Thus, the Court 

lacks personal jurisdiction over the prison officials, and it cannot issue an order requiring them to take 

any action. Nor has there been a showing that the relief requested relates to the prison officials named 

in this complaint, or to the matters at issue in this action.

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's motion to compel officials 

to process appeals, construed as a motion a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary 

injunction, be DENIED. 

These Findings and Recommendation 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 fourteen (14) 

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.” 

///

///

///

///

Case 1:16-cv-00084-LJO-BAM Document 24 Filed 08/09/16 Page 3 of 4
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

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 

waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 

772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00084-LJO-BAM Document 24 Filed 08/09/16 Page 4 of 4