Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02074/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02074-4/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

KEVIN D. BRYANT,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. ROMERO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-02074 LJO DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

[ECF No. 30]

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME

[ECF No. 31]

Plaintiff Kevin D. Bryant (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 

civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on December 26, 2012. On 

November 1, 2013, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint. On 

December 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. 

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief and 

extension of time filed on April 8, 2015, and April 20, 2015. In his motions, Plaintiff asks that the 

Court issue an order directing Warden Dave Davey of California State Prison – Corcoran to 

transport all of his property to California Men’s Colony. The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the 

parties before it in this action, i.e., Defendants Waddle and Castellanos, and to Plaintiff’s claim of 

retaliation arising from an incidents occurring between November 30, 2010, and August of 2011. 

See, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998) 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 34 Filed 05/29/15 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

(“[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s caseor-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of 

establishing its existence.”) (citation omitted); American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Masto, 

670 F.3d 1046, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[F]ederal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases 

or controversies.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, any award of 

equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which provides in relevant part, 

“Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than 

necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court 

shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief 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.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). 

In this case, Warden Dave Davey is not a party to this action and therefore the Court has no 

personal jurisdiction over Warden Dave Davey. In addition, the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the 

issuance of orders that remedy the underlying legal claim. Id. Therefore, the Court will recommend 

that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be denied.

Plaintiff has also requested an extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion 

to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status and dismiss the case, filed on April 8, 2015. Good 

cause having been presented and good cause appearing therefor, the Court will grant Plaintiff an 

extension of thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file an opposition to 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion 

for preliminary injunction be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) 

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 34 Filed 05/29/15 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

shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are 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).

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time is GRANTED. The 

deadline for filing Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion to revoke in forma pauperis status 

and dismiss the case is extended thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 34 Filed 05/29/15 Page 3 of 3