Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00446/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00446-48/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

Plaintiff Kevin Darnell Bryant (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 17, 2011. This action 

proceeds against Defendant Romero for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants Gallagher and Romero for conspiracy, retaliation in 

violation of the First Amendment, and failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

On April 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for a thirty-day extension of time after his legal 

property is issued to him to file any oppositions, responses or moving papers. Plaintiff explains that 

he is currently housed at California Men’s Colony, East, but his legal and personal property has not 

been transferred to him from California State Prison, Corcoran. Plaintiff seeks a corresponding order 

for the transfer of his property. 

KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT

 Plaintiff,

v.

P. GALLAGHER, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00446-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

COURT ORDER

(ECF No. 188)

FOURTEEN-DAY DEALINE

Case 1:11-cv-00446-BAM Document 189 Filed 04/21/15 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

I. Motion for Extension of Time

Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is moot. This matter has been scheduled for a 

settlement conference on June 2, 2015, and these proceedings are stayed pending the results of that

settlement conference. (ECF No. 181.) There are no motions requiring a response or opposition or 

any other pending motion deadlines. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time is HEREBY DENIED. 

II. Motion for Court Order

Plaintiff seeks an order directing Dave Davey, Warden of California State Prison, Corcoran, to 

immediately transport Plaintiff’s legal and personal property to him at California Men’s Colony, East. 

Plaintiff explains that he requires his legal property to draft the confidential settlement conference 

statement, which is due on May 18, 2015. 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, in considering a request for 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 and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 

471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, 

it has no power to hear the matter in question. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102; Valley Forge Christian Coll., 

454 U.S. at 471. Thus, “[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 Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 

(9th Cir.1983); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) (listing persons bound by injunction). 

Plaintiff’s action concerns allegations against Defendants Gallagher and Romero. However, 

the request for injunctive relief is directed at Warden Davey, a non-party to this action. The Court 

therefore finds that it lacks jurisdiction to issue an order directed at Warden Davey. Plaintiff may wish 

to seek the assistance of the Litigation Coordinator or defense counsel in obtaining his legal property 

in advance of the settlement conference deadlines. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY 

RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for a court order directing Warden Dave Davey to transport 

Plaintiff’s legal and personal property be denied. 

Case 1:11-cv-00446-BAM Document 189 Filed 04/21/15 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

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 fourteen (14) 

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 result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” 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 20, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00446-BAM Document 189 Filed 04/21/15 Page 3 of 3