Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00699/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00699-11/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

JASON SAUNDERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAUNDERS, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00699-AWI-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR AN

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND FOR

JUDICIAL NOTICE

(Doc. 29.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY

DAYS

Jason Saunders (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on

June 1, 2005. On September 12, 2005, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The court

dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend on November 1, 2006. On January 30,

2007, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. Now pending is plaintiff’s Request for Order

to Show Cause and for Judicial Notice filed on May 23, 2007.

Plaintiff requests the court to issue an undescribed “order to show cause” against

defendants who plaintiff alleges harassed him and retaliated against him. The court treats

plaintiff’s request as a request for injunctive relief.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court

must 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

Case 1:05-cv-00699-RC Document 31 Filed 11/07/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of Los

Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or

controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. 

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of

equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure

the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v.

Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a Plaintiff who

“demonstrates either (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable

harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.”

Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either

approach the Plaintiff “must demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. Also, an

injunction should not issue if the Plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the merits.” Id. At a

bare minimum, the Plaintiff “must demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or

questions serious enough to require litigation.” Id. “A 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). 

In this case, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on January 30, 2007. The court

has yet to screen the amended complaint filed by plaintiff to determine whether it states a

cognizable claim for relief. Thus, plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief until

such time as the court finds that his complaint contains cognizable claims for relief against the

named defendants and the named defendants have been served with a summons and the amended

complaint. At this juncture, defendants are not currently before the court and a request by

plaintiff for preliminary injunctive relief is premature. Therefore, the court shall recommend that

plaintiff’s request for an order to show cause be denied.

In addition, plaintiff requests the court to take judicial notice of harassment and

retaliation allegedly occurring against him since he filed the complaint on June 1, 2005. Plaintiff

requests the court to take notice of misconduct by defendants who were not named in the original

Case 1:05-cv-00699-RC Document 31 Filed 11/07/07 Page 2 of 4
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

complaint and who plaintiff “expected to retaliate against and harass plaintiff . . .following

discovery of suit.” (P’s Request at p. 2.) (emphasis added.) Plaintiff also refers to events which

occurred on October 17, 2006, and December 18, 2006, well after the complaint was filed. 

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[n]o action shall be brought with

respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner

confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are

available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. 

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). The section 1997e(a) exhaustion

requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516,

532 (2002), and “[a]ll ‘available’ remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies need not

meet federal standards, nor must they be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.’” Porter, 534 U.S. at 524

(citing to Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 n.5 (2001)). Prisoners must complete the prison’s

administrative process, regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief

offered by the process, as long as the administrative process can provide some sort of relief on

the complaint stated. Booth, 532 U.S. at 741.

In light of section 1997e(a), plaintiff may not add new and unrelated claims that arose

after this suit was filed. In a “conflict between Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and the

PLRA, the rule would have to yield to the later-enacted statute to the extent of the conflict.” 

Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 982 (11th Cir. 2000). Rule 15 “does not and cannot overrule a

substantive requirement or restriction contained in a statute (especially a subsequently enacted

one).” Id. at 983. If the court took judicial notice of claims which accrued after this action was

filed, it would allow plaintiff to thwart the mandate of section 1997e(a), which requires that

claim exhaustion occur prior to filing suit and not during the pendency of the suit. See

McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. 

As such, all claims at issue in this action must have been exhausted by June 1, 2005. 

Therefore, plaintiff may not pursue claims that are new and unrelated to the claims at issue in the

original complaint and were not fully exhausted on or before June 1, 2005. Accordingly, the

court shall recommend that plaintiff’s request for judicial notice be denied.

Case 1:05-cv-00699-RC Document 31 Filed 11/07/07 Page 3 of 4
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

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s Request for

Order to Show Cause and for Judicial Notice, filed on May 23, 2007, 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, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 7, 2007 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

60kij UNI 8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00699-RC Document 31 Filed 11/07/07 Page 4 of 4