Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00986/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00986-15/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VALENTINE E. UNDERWOOD, 

Plaintiff,

v.

M. KNOWLES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:08-cv-00986-AWI-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,

RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION BE DENIED

(Docs. 48, 52.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS

I. BACKGROUND

Valentine E. Underwood (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds on Plaintiff's original

complaint, filed July 17, 2008, against defendants Northcutt and Martin for retaliation in violation

of the First Amendment, and against defendants Northcutt, Martin, Caviness, Lantz, Trujullo, Truitt,

and Fambrough for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1

On April 21, 2010, and July 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed motions for preliminaryinjunction, which

are now before the Court. (Docs. 48, 52.)

. II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff

seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is

All other claims and defendants were dismissed by the Court on October 21, 2009. (Doc. 31.)

1

1

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 76 Filed 12/17/10 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

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 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. Id. Requests for prospective

relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which

requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] 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.”

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks the issuance of preliminary injunctions directing prison officials to allow him

access to the law library to enable him to meet court deadlines in this action. (Docs. 48, 52.) 

This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims for excessive force and retaliation based on events

allegedly occurring in 2006 and 2007 while Plaintiff was housed at Kern Valley State Prison in

Delano, California, and the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California. (Doc. 1.) 

Plaintiff is now incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City, California. The case or

controversy requirement cannot be met in light of the fact that Plaintiff’s issue concerning present

access to the law library bears no relation, jurisdictionally, to the past events giving rise to this suit. 

Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102; 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); also Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 129 S.Ct.

1142, 1148-49 (2009); Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 102-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003

(1998). Because the case-or-controversy requirement cannot be met, the pendency of this action

provides no basis upon which to award Plaintiff injunctive relief. Id. The only relief available to

Plaintiff in this action, should he prevail, is money damages for the past violation of his

2

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 76 Filed 12/17/10 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

constitutional rights while housed at Kern Valley State Prison and the California Correctional

Institution in 2006 and 2007. 

IV. RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned HEREBYRECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’smotions

for preliminary injunction, filed on April 21, 2010, and July 6, 2010, be DENIED for lack of

jurisdiction. 

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: December 17, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 76 Filed 12/17/10 Page 3 of 3