Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00512/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00512-15/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

WILL MOSES PALMER, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00512-LJO-BAM PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(ECF No. )

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Will Moses, Palmer, III(“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the first amended

complaint, filed August 29, 2007, against DefendantsJordnt andBardonnex for retaliation and denial

of access to the court in violation of the First Amendment. On December 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed

a motion for an order directing the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to

provide Plaintiff with his legal documents and a typewriter.

For each form of relief sought in federal court, Plaintiff must establish standing. Mayfield

v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.denied, 131 S. Ct. 503 (2010). This requires

Plaintiff to “show that he is under threat of suffering ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and

particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be

fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial

decision will prevent or redress the injury.” Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 129 S. Ct. 1142, 1149

(2009) (citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969 (citation omitted).

In addition, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act,

1

Case 1:06-cv-00512-LJO-BAM Document 83 Filed 01/09/12 Page 1 of 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

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). 

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Centinela State Prison and claims that he is being denied

access to his legal materials and typewriter. In this instance the case or controversy requirement

cannot be met in light of the fact that the issue Plaintiff seeks to remedy in his motion bears no

relation to his claims against Defendants Jordnt and Bardonnex for incidents that occurred at the

California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, Corcoran. 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, 107 (1998). The relief requested by Plaintiff is not

related to the underlying claims against Defendants Jordnt and Bardonnex. Since the relief sought

would not remedy the violation of the Federal right at issue here, the Court cannot grant the

requested relief and Plaintiff’s motion for equitable relief should be denied. 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s

motion for a court order, filed December 30, 2011, be DENIED.

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: January 9, 2012 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

10c20k UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:06-cv-00512-LJO-BAM Document 83 Filed 01/09/12 Page 2 of 2