Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01684/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01684-15/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

NATHAN SESSING, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

STU SHERMAN, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01684-LJO-MJS (PC) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

(ECF No. 73)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR 

A PROTECTIVE ORDER

(ECF Nos. 70 & 81)

FOURTEEN DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

Plaintiff Nathan Sessing is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s June 19, 2015 fourth amended complaint against Defendants Sherman, 

Stainer, and Braggs for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment. (ECF No. 34.). The parties have declined Magistrate Judge jurisdiction.

Pending before the Court are two motions by Plaintiff seeking “protective orders” 

enjoining Plaintiff’s transfer from the California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility 

(“SATF”). (ECF Nos. 70 & 81). Defendants have opposed these motions. (ECF No. 86.) 

Plaintiff has not replied. They are submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

Case 1:13-cv-01684-LJO-MJS Document 92 Filed 10/26/16 Page 1 of 6
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

Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to shorten time to rule on ECF 

No. 70. (ECF No. 73.) 

I. Background

At all times relevant to this suit, Plaintiff was housed at the SATF in Corcoran, 

California. 

Plaintiff is a practitioner of Asatru/Odinism, an Earth-based polytheistic religion 

originating out of Northern Europe. According to Plaintiff, “[o]utdoor worship utilizing a 

fire pit and specific facilities, [including an altar and a circle of stones] is a central part of 

Asatru, and the religion cannot be practiced without it.” Plaintiff’s fourth amended 

complaint alleges that Defendants violated his right to Equal Protection under the law 

when they denied him and other practitioners of Asatru/Odinism a designated outdoor 

worship area with a fire pit, despite allowing the same to practitioners of the Native 

American religion. Plaintiff seeks only declaratory relief and an injunction directing 

Defendants to construct an outdoor worship area for Odinists at SATF.

On August 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed his “Motion for a Protective Order and 

Emergency Relief” asking this Court to issue an order preventing his transfer from SATF

to High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”). (ECF No. 70.) Plaintiff argues that since this case

seeks only injunctive relief, to wit, the construction of a worship area at SATF, his

transfer to a new institution may moot his claims for relief. If so, his suit may be 

dismissed and he could be left unable to recoup costs of suit and end up having to pay 

Defendants’ costs.

On September 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed his “Motion for Emergency Relief” raising 

the same concerns and seeking to stop his transfer out of SATF. (ECF No. 81.)

On October 10, 2016, Defendants filed opposition to both motions. (ECF No. 86.) 

They note that as of the date of their opposition, Plaintiff had already been transferred to 

HDSP. As such, his request to, in effect, enjoin his transfer was moot. Defendants 

Case 1:13-cv-01684-LJO-MJS Document 92 Filed 10/26/16 Page 2 of 6
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

argue, alternatively, that the Court in any event lacks jurisdiction over non-party

Institutional Classification Committee which recommended the transfer and, finally, that 

the relief sought exceeds that requested in Plaintiff’s suit.

II. Legal Standard

Plaintiff characterizes his motions as requests for a protective order1to preserve 

his ability to litigate. See Phillips ex re. Estates of Byrd v. General Motoes Corp., 307 

F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002) (a party moving for a protective order must show 

that without it, he will be significantly impeded from litigating the action); see also Pope 

v. Garcia, No. CIV S-11-0101 LKK, 2012 WL 1552431, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2012)

(noting that in contrast to a preliminary injunction, “[t]he focus of the harm in protective 

order situations is harm to the ability to litigate, not irreparable harm to the plaintiff.”)

The Court construes Plaintiff’s motions as a request to enjoin his transfer from 

SATF. He characterizes it as a request for an order necessary to prevent what he 

considers irreparable harm to himself, i.e., the dismissal of his lawsuit and the loss of 

his claim to recover litigation expenses. See Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, 

Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984) (“A preliminary injunction . . . [is] a device for 

preserving the status quo and preventing the irreparable loss of rights before 

judgment.”); see also U. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981) (“The purpose 

of a preliminary injunction is merely to preserve the relative positions of the parties until 

a trial on the merits can be held.”)

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The pendency of this action does 

not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general or over any interim relief 

requested that is not the subject of the operative complaint. Summers v. Earth Institute, 

555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009) (citation omitted); 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 

 

1 Not to be confused with protective orders issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). 

Case 1:13-cv-01684-LJO-MJS Document 92 Filed 10/26/16 Page 3 of 6
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

the cognizable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 

491-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 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 Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added).

III. Discussion

The Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief Plaintiff seeks. 

Plaintiff’s lawsuit arises from an asserted lack of appropriate religious 

accommodations at SATF. In the instant motions he seeks an order preventing his 

transfer to a different institution before his claims have been decided on the merits. 

Such relief reaches far beyond the scope of his complaint and is not “of the same 

character as may be granted finally.” De Beers, 325 U.S. at 220. He has not, in any 

event, identified any right to be protected from dismissal of his claims on valid 

substantive grounds or to preservation of potential claims for costs of suit.

Plaintiff’s request for an order preventing his transfer was, in any event, rendered 

moot by his transfer to HDSP on or before October 24, 2016.2 See Dilley v. Gunn, 64 

F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Finally, it appears Plaintiff’s transfer (following an assault by another prisoner) 

was for reasons of institutional security. Absent exceptional circumstances not present 

here, the Court will not intervene in the day-to-day management of prisons. See e.g., 

Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003) (prison officials entitled to substantial 

deference); Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482-83 (1995) (disapproving the 

involvement of federal courts in the day-to-day-management of prisons). 

The Court will therefore recommend denying Plaintiff’s motions.

 

2

See Pl.’s Notice of Change of Address (ECF No. 91) at 1.

Case 1:13-cv-01684-LJO-MJS Document 92 Filed 10/26/16 Page 4 of 6
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

5

IV. Ex Parte Request to Shorten Time

Plaintiff asks that the Court rule on Plaintiff’s Motion for a Protective Order and 

Emergency Relief prior to the expiration of the twenty-one day period for filing an 

opposition prescribed by Local Rule 230(l). (ECF No. 73.) The Court construes this as a 

request to shorten time pursuant to Local Rule 144(e). 

Local Rule 144(e) requires that applications to shorten time set forth the 

circumstances claimed to justify the issuance of an order shortening time. Ex parte

applications to shorten time will not be granted except upon an affidavit showing a 

satisfactory explanation for the need for the issuance of such an order and for the failure 

to obtain a stipulation for the issuance of such an order from the opposing party. Local 

Rule 144(e).

Here, Plaintiff has not provided a satisfactory explanation for the need to shorten 

time, other than to state that his motion is “time-sensitive” and Plaintiff will suffer 

irreparable harm if relief is not granted. The Court will assume that Plaintiff’ was 

concerned that absent an order shortening time, his transfer would predate the Court’s 

ruling and moot the motion. However, as noted above, the Court could not have granted

the relief Plaintiff seeks. Plaintiff’s motion to shorten time will be denied. 

V. Conclusion

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to shorten time (ECF No. 73) is DENIED.

Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

2. Plaintiff’s motions for a protective order, construed as motions for a 

preliminary injunction (ECF No. 70 & 81), 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 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and 

Case 1:13-cv-01684-LJO-MJS Document 92 Filed 10/26/16 Page 5 of 6
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

6

Recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the Court. The document 

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of rights 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: October 25, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01684-LJO-MJS Document 92 Filed 10/26/16 Page 6 of 6