Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00655/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00655-12/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 

DeWAYNE THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADAMS, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00655-AWI-SKO (PC) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF=S MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE 

DENIED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION and 

REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE OF LITIGATION 

COORDINATOR

(Doc. 51)

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, DeWayne Thompson, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and informa pauperis

in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request 

for court order requiring prison officials to provide his legal property and personal stationary for 

adequate legal access. (Doc. 51.) This is construed as a motion for injunctive relief. 

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 

Case 1:13-cv-00655-AWI-SKO Document 54 Filed 04/26/16 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

2

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.@ 

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

general or over the conditions of Plaintiff=s confinement. 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 upon 

which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 492-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 

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

against any of the Defendants in this action. AA 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 Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Thus, Plaintiff=s 

motion must be denied for lack of jurisdiction over the "prison officials” whom Plaintiff seeks to 

compel to provide him access to his legal property and personal stationary supplies. 

Plaintiff is not precluded from attempting to state cognizable claims in a new action if he 

believes his civil rights are being violated beyond his pleadings in this action. 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 obstructing Plaintiff's access 

to his legal materials and stationary supplies cannot and do not overcome what is a jurisdictional

bar. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 103-04 (A[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability 

constitutes the core of Article III=s case-or-controversy 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. 1

The Litigation Office, however, is 

 

1

 Plaintiff=s motion also fails to make the requisite showing, supported by admissible evidence, to obtain a 

preliminary injunction. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20-4, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 

(2008). However, it is unnecessary to reach the merits of Plaintiff=s motion in light of the fact that the jurisdictional 

issue is fatal to his requests for relief. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493, 129 S.Ct. at 1149; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 

Case 1:13-cv-00655-AWI-SKO Document 54 Filed 04/26/16 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

3

requested to look into the matter and to facilitate Plaintiff=s access to his legal property and 

writing materials as provided for indigent inmates, as well as his access to the law library and 

other legal resources as necessary for the pendency of this action.2

 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff=s motion for injunctive 

relief, filed November 3, 2015, be denied for lack of jurisdiction. However, the Clerk's Office is 

directed to forward a copy of this order and Plaintiff's motion to the Litigation Coordinator at 

California State Prison, Sacramento, so that they might facilitate Plaintiff’s access to his legal 

property and stationary supplies as provided for indigent inmates. 

 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, the parties may file 

written objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). 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: April 25, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

2

 How access is best facilitated in light of Plaintiff=s housing status and other custody or classification factors is 

left to the sound discretion of prison officials. 

Case 1:13-cv-00655-AWI-SKO Document 54 Filed 04/26/16 Page 3 of 3