Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01405/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01405-10/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

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

DALE DUSTIN,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

C. GIPSON, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-01405-LJO-EPG (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR TRANSFER

(ECF No. 39.)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On June 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of 

time to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff also seeks a Court order 

transferring him to another prison facility. (Id.)

I. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Plaintiff requests an extension of time to file an amended complaint, pursuant to the 

Court’s order of May 18, 2015 (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff claims that his personal property was 

taken from him by prison officials and only some of it was returned. Plaintiff asserts that he 

does not have his law books, leisure books, some of his legal paperwork, toothbrush, 

toothpaste, palmbrush, dental floss, soups, soap, or coffee. 

Plaintiff has not shown good cause for another extension of time. Plaintiff has not 

explained why he needs all of his missing property, or even some of his missing property, to 

Case 1:14-cv-01405-LJO-EPG Document 40 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

prepare and file an amended complaint. The Court offered Plaintiff guidance in the May 18, 

2015 screening order, instructing him to file an amended complaint clearly stating, in his own 

words, what happened to violate his rights.1 Plaintiff was advised to name each individual 

defendant by name, describe where that defendant is employed and in what capacity, and 

explain how that defendant acted to violate his rights. Plaintiff was also advised that he does 

not need to set forth legal argument or evidence at this stage of the litigation. Plaintiff has not 

explained why he cannot follow the Court’s instructions without access to his missing property. 

Moreover, Plaintiff has had ample time to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has been 

granted multiple extensions of time, and more than a year has passed since the Court ordered 

Plaintiff to file the amended complaint. 

The Court is inclined to deny Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time. However, in an 

abundance of caution, the Court shall allow Plaintiff one last extension of time to file an 

amended complaint. Plaintiff shall be granted thirty days from the date of this order in which 

to comply with the Court’s May 18, 2015 screening order. No further extensions of time 

shall be granted without a showing of good cause.

II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff requests a Court order transferring him to another prison. The Court construes 

Plaintiff’s request as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. 

AA 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.@ Id.

at 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the 

plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

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 

 

1

In the May 18, 2015 screening order, the Court found that Plaintiff’s Complaint, which 

included more than 48 pages of rambling and conclusory allegations, did not contain “a short and plain statement 

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . .” , as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. (ECF No. 19.)

Case 1:14-cv-01405-LJO-EPG Document 40 Filed 07/29/16 Page 2 of 3
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

matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 

95, 102 (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. 

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) in Delano, 

California, and seeks a Court order requiring officials at KVSP to transfer him to another prison 

facility of his choosing. Plaintiff requests “judicial override for transfer to either a federal 

prison (such as Lompoc) or to Lancaster or Donovan or (CHCF) Stockton Medical Facility. . .” 

(ECF No. 39 at 1.) 

The Court lacks jurisdiction in this case to require prison officials at KVSP to transfer 

Plaintiff, because none of the KVSP officials are defendants in this case. “A 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). 

Therefore, Plaintiff=s request for transfer must be denied. 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff is GRANTED one last extension of time until thirty days from the date 

of service of this order, to file an amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s screening 

order issued on May 19, 2015; and

2. Plaintiff=s request for transfer to another prison facility, filed on June 9, 2016, is 

DENIED for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01405-LJO-EPG Document 40 Filed 07/29/16 Page 3 of 3