Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01601/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01601-6/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

LACEDRIC JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRAUENHEIM, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-SKO (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF=S 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED 

(Doc. 43)

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, Lacedric Johnson, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a 

motion for judicial intervention requesting, among other things,1that an order issue directing 

Defendants to cease and desist “unethical conduct” and admonishing prison officials to “better 

regulate their legal mail.” (Doc. 43.) 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 

 

1

Plaintiff also seeks an order that his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be accepted for filing 

which is addressed by separate order. 

Case 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-SKO Document 47 Filed 04/19/16 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

and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). However, the pendency of this action does not give the 

Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general or over the handling of inmates’ mail at a given 

institution. 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.

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). Thus, Plaintiff=s motion must be denied for lack of jurisdiction over “prison 

officials” whom Plaintiff seeks to prohibit and/or compel to action regarding the handling of his 

legal mail.

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. However, the seriousness of Plaintiff=s accusations concerning obstruction of access to his 

legal mail 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 pertaining to the handling of his legal mail.

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

evidence, to obtain a preliminary injunction against “Defendants” for “unethical conduct.” Winter 

v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20-4, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008). While 

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief from opposing parties in this action, he fails to state any facts as to 

what conduct, by which “Defendants,” he believes are “unethical.” Requests for prospective relief 

are 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 

Case 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-SKO Document 47 Filed 04/19/16 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

the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation 

of the Federal right.@ 

“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, 555 

U.S. at 20. An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled 

to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

As to his request that Defendants be prohibited from engaging in “unethical conduct,”

Plaintiff has not demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits, likelihood of irreparable harm, 

a balance of equities in his favor, or that an injunction is in the public interest.

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

relief, filed February 26, 2016, 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 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 18, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-SKO Document 47 Filed 04/19/16 Page 3 of 3