Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00880/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00880-12/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

John E. James, III, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

A.K. Scribner, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-880-TUC-RCC

ORDER

Plaintiff, John James, a state prisoner proceeding pro se in forma pauperis, filed this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Complaint states that the allegations

therein are based on instances that occurred at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) in

Tehachapi, California. Pending before this Court are Plaintiff’s motions for temporary

restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. (Dkt. # 45, 55, 61-62). 

Background

In all four motions, James asserts that while incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison

(KVSP), he was subjected to harassment and retaliation for prosecuting this action. He

alleges these offenses were committed by non-party CDCR employees and KVSP prison

officials. James requests the Court order: (1) his transfer out of CDCR custody into federal

custody for the remaining thirteen months of his sentence; (2) his transfer out of KVSP to a

Case 1:07-cv-00880-RC Document 76 Filed 06/01/10 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

- 2 -

different CDCR institution; (3) that CDCR staff stop harassing him; (4) the CDCR Secretary

to issue in writing a correspondence and/or memorandum guaranteeing that James will not

be harassed by CDCR staff again; (5) that James receive medical treatment for his “scabies”

itching; and (6) that the physical evidence attached to James’s motion that he claims contains

scabies and food infected with Swine flu be tested. On May 17, 2010, James filed a notice

of change of address showing that he is now incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison

(PVSP) in Delano, California. (Dkt. #70).

In their response, Defendants claim that James’s requests for injunctive relief are (1)

moot because James is no longer housed at KVSP and (2) outside this Court’s jurisdiction

because the staff James complains about are not parties to this action.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motions.

Discussion

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the movant must show “that he is likely to succeed

on the merits, that he is 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.”

Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). A preliminary

injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy and “one that should not be granted unless

the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong,

520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam) (quoting 11A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane,

Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948, pp. 129-130 (2d ed. 1995)). 

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, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). 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.”

Case 1:07-cv-00880-RC Document 76 Filed 06/01/10 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

- 3 -

The events at issue in this action occurred while Plaintiff was housed at KVSP.

Plaintiff is now housed at PVSP. It appears that the subject motions were aimed at

remedying Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement at KVSP. Since Plaintiff is no longer

housed at KVSP, any such motions seeking injunctive relief for his conditions at KVSP are

moot. Villegas v. White, 61 F.3d 914 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d

517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991)).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions for Temporary

Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. # 45, 55, 61-62) are denied as moot.

DATED this 28th day of May, 2010.

Case 1:07-cv-00880-RC Document 76 Filed 06/01/10 Page 3 of 3