Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00205/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00205-76/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

On February 3, 2016, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s 

motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. The motion contained claims that

prison personnel at CCI, Tehachapi were tainting his food and coercing other inmates to threaten death 

or grievous bodily harm against him. Also, he claimed that personnel at Kern Valley State Prison

were tainting his food and placing him on yards with prison gang members in an effort to cause them 

to inflict great bodily harm on him. (See Docs. 307, 315, 317.) Plaintiff did not object. 

At the telephonic trial confirmation hearing, Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction 

and the case was thereafter reassigned for all purposes.1 Thus, the Findings and Recommendations 

that issued on February 3, 2016 is WITHDRAWN and, for the reasons stated previously, Plaintiff’s 

motions (Docs. 307, 315) are DENIED. 

 

1 Defendants previously consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (See Doc. 297.)

BARRY LOUIS LAMON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00205-LJO-JLT (PC) 

ORDER WITHDRAWING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION REQUESTING 

ACCESS TO CASE FILES AND LEGAL 

MATERIALS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 

(Doc. 307, 315, 317, 319)

Case 1:09-cv-00205-JLT Document 329 Filed 03/10/16 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

In his motion, Plaintiff generally asserts that prison staff at all of the facilities he is transferred 

to are aware of his litigious activities and, as a result, want to do him harm. (Doc. 307) Plaintiff also 

grieves that, when he was transferred from CCI to KVSP, he was not allowed to take his case files and 

asserts that this has rendered him unable to respond to any orders from this court. (Id.) 

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 (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 Arelief 

[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.@ 

Regardless, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 

officials in general or over every prison facility in the state of California. Summers v. Earth Island 

Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). 

The Court=s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the cognizable legal claims in this 

action. Summers, 129 S.Ct. at 1148-49; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

Plaintiff does not seek the temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction against 

any of the Defendants who remain in this action. AA federal court may issue an injunction 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 Service, 

753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Thus, Plaintiff=s motion must be denied for lack 

of jurisdiction over prison personnel at CCI and KVSP. (See Doc. 287.)

This action cannot provide redress for the fears Plaintiff has regarding his safety at various 

prison facilities. The issue is not that Plaintiff=s allegations are not serious, or that Plaintiff is not 

entitled to relief if sought in the proper forum. The seriousness of Plaintiff=s accusations concerning 

his safety cannot, and do not, overcome what is a jurisdictional bar. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 103-04 

Case 1:09-cv-00205-JLT Document 329 Filed 03/10/16 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

(A[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III=s case-orcontroversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing 

its existence.@) This action is simply not the proper vehicle for conveyance of the relief Plaintiff seeks. 

Further, while this Court also lacks jurisdiction over officials at the various prison facilities 

where Plaintiff has been housed, the last order issued addressing Plaintiff’s difficulty in accessing his 

legal property was forwarded to the Wardens and Litigation Coordinators at CSP- Corcoran, CSPSacramento, and CCI and their assistance was requested in locating Plaintiff’s legal property. (Doc. 

309). The Court received responses, indicating that approximately nine boxes of Plaintiff’s legal 

property were located and forwarded to KVSP (where Plaintiff is currently housed). (See Docs. 312, 

313, 316) As to Plaintiff’s physical property, described in the notice Plaintiff filed on February 5, 

2016 (Doc. 319), defense counsel has indicated willingness to continuing efforts to ascertain its 

whereabouts. 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations that issued on February 3, 2016 (Doc. 317) is 

WITHDRAWN;

2. Plaintiff=s motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, filed

January 5, 2016 (Doc. 307), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00205-JLT Document 329 Filed 03/10/16 Page 3 of 3