Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00573/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00573-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

15cv573-JLS (WVG)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH WAYNE SEKERKE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHERIFF DEPUTY GONZALEZ; 

DEPUTY JOHN DOE; LISA GUIGUITE 

STARK, DDA; JOHN AND JANE 

DOES, DDA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 15cv573-JLS (WVG)

ORDER: (1) OVERRULING 

PLAINTIFF’S R. & R. 

OBJECTIONS; (2) ADOPTING 

R. & R. (3) AND DENYING EX 

PARTE REQUEST FOR A PRISON

TRANSFER AND MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTION

(ECF Nos. 76 & 78)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion and Ex Parte Request for a Prison 

Transfer and Order upon California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

(“CDCR”) Officials to Stop Retaliation and Assaults and Injunction (“Transfer Mot.”).

(ECF No. 76.) Approximately five days after the Court received the Transfer Motion, 

Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo submitted a Report and Recommendation (“R. & R.”) 

recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s requested relief. (ECF No. 78.) Plaintiff 

subsequently filed two sets of Objections. (Pl.’s Objs. to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation (“Obj. I”), ECF No. 83; Pl.’s Suppl. Objs. to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations (“Obj. II”), ECF No. 84.) Having reviewed Judge Gallo’s

/ / /

Case 3:15-cv-00573-JLS-WVG Document 86 Filed 05/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

15cv573-JLS (WVG)

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

Report and Recommendation, as well as Plaintiff’s Transfer Motion and Objections, the 

Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Transfer Motion.

Procedurally, a federal district court may issue emergency injunctive relief only if it 

has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. 

See Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting 

that one “becomes a party officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only 

upon service of summons or other authority-asserting measure stating the time within 

which the party served must appear to defend”). The court may not attempt to determine 

the rights of persons not before it. See, e.g., Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 

U.S. 229, 234–35 (1916); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727–28 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), an injunction binds only “the parties to the 

action,” their “officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” and “other persons 

who are in active concert or participation” with them. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(A)–(C).

In the present case, Plaintiff’s Transfer Motion seeks an injunction ordering “the 

CDCR to transfer him to another prison and to order the guards at Kern Valley State Prison 

to cease assaulting him and retaliating against him for attempting to litigate this lawsuit.” 

(R. & R. 2.) However, as Judge Gallo correctly noted, Plaintiff’s claims in this lawsuit “are 

against San Diego County Deputy Sheriff Gonzalez and occurred [approximately three 

years ago] in a courtroom of the San Diego Superior Court.” (Id. at 3.) Accordingly, neither 

CDCR nor any guard at Kern Valley State Prison are a party to this lawsuit, and “ordering 

Plaintiff transferred to a different prison would not address or redress any alleged injury” 

set forth in the operative Complaint “in the instant case.” (Id.) Otherwise put, the relief 

Plaintiff requests—presented within the procedural posture of this lawsuit—falls outside 

of the permissible jurisdictional scope set by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and 

binding case law. This is fatal to Plaintiff’s request. (See R. & R. 3 (“Any alleged guard 

assaults or retaliation against Plaintiff at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California are 

factually disconnected from, and unrelated to, the core facts of this case and are properly 

the subject of a separate section 1983 action if Plaintiff chooses to pursue that route.”).)

Case 3:15-cv-00573-JLS-WVG Document 86 Filed 05/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

15cv573-JLS (WVG)

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

And Plaintiff’s Objections cannot skirt this threshold jurisdictional requirement. 

Plaintiff’s first Objections focus on the threats and assaults he has allegedly endured while 

in prison, as well as denials of access to the Prison Law Library, which have made it so 

that he cannot “effectively prosecute [his] claims.” (E.g., Objs. I 2.) Plaintiff’s second 

Objections again focus on denials of access to the Prison Law Library, recounting various 

interactions with the Prison law librarians, and a general lack of Prison staffing. (Objs. II 

1–5.) Even taking these objections as true, however, they do nothing to alleviate the 

jurisdictional deficiencies noted above. (See, e.g., Objs. II 3 (“I do know and believe I’m 

being retaliated against for REASONS UNRELATED to this case, but since this prison 

does not have enough staff to provide meaningful access to [the] law library for all the 

prisoners, it[’]s [a] justifiable reason for the Court to intercede.” (capitalization in 

original).)1

Given the foregoing, the Court:

(1) OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections;

(2) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Gallo’s Report and Recommendation; and

(3) DENIES Plaintiff’s Transfer Motion in its entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2017

 

1 Plaintiff also seemingly requests a stay of the action if the Court does not grant relief: “[P]erhaps [t]he 

Honorable Court will stay the proceedings, please, until I get released or until this prison can hire the 

proper amount of staff.” (Obj. II 3.) However, a Supplemental Objection to a Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation is not the proper place to request a new and distinct form of relief, especially one 

as drastic as a stay. Among other things, Defendant should have the chance to respond to such a request.

Case 3:15-cv-00573-JLS-WVG Document 86 Filed 05/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3