Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00809/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00809-16/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

ANTHONY NGUYEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. D. BITER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00809-AWI-SKO PC 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING

MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF

(Docs. 40-43, 51, 56, and 57)

Plaintiff AnthonyNguyen, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 18, 2011. The matter was referred to a

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On December 21, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a findings and recommendations

recommending that Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief be denied for lack of

jurisdiction. (Docs. 40-43.) Plaintiff filed a timely objection on January 6, 2012. (Doc. 48.)

In addition, on January 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed an unsupported motion seeking an order

prohibiting prison officials from transferring him to a different prison, and on May15, 2012, Plaintiff

filed a supplement to the motion. On May 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed another unsupported motion

seeking unspecified relief, based on his assertion that his safety is in danger.

“[T]hose who seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts must satisfy the threshold

requirement imposed by Article III of the Constitution by alleging an actual case or controversy,”

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983) (citations omitted),

and for each form of relief sought in federal court, Plaintiff must establish standing, Summers v.

1

Case 1:11-cv-00809-AWI-SKO Document 59 Filed 05/31/12 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

Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009) (citation omitted); Mayfield

v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). This requires Plaintiff to show

that he is under threat of suffering an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized; the threat must

be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to challenged

conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or

redress the injury. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493 (quotation marks and citation omitted); Mayfield, 599

F.3d at 969. 

In addition, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act,

which provides in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison

conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a

particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless

the court finds that such relief 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.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). 

In this action, Plaintiff is seeking redress for the alleged violation of his rights under the

Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution vis a vis his exposure to arsenic-contaminated

drinking water at Kern Valley State Prison. Other deficiencies in his motions not withstanding,

Plaintiff is now incarcerated at California Correctional Institution and his legal claim arising from

past exposure to contaminated drinking water does not vest the Court with jurisdiction to intervene

in Plaintiff’s transfer to another institution or in Plaintiff’s current conditions of confinement at

California Correctional Institution.

Plaintiff misunderstands the limited jurisdiction of federal courts. (Doc. 57, Motion, 2:10-

13.) The fact that Plaintiff has filed a civil lawsuit does not give him standing to seek any and all

relief regarding his general conditions of confinement as a prisoner and his argument to the contrary

is unavailing. (Id.) 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and

recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

2

Case 1:11-cv-00809-AWI-SKO Document 59 Filed 05/31/12 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations, filed on December 21, 2011, is adopted in full;

and 

2. Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on December 16, 2011,

January 19, 2012, May 15, 2012, and May 16, 2012, are DENIED, with prejudice,

for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 31, 2012 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

3

Case 1:11-cv-00809-AWI-SKO Document 59 Filed 05/31/12 Page 3 of 3