Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02074/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02074-9/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 DAD DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND/OR MOTION 

FOR ALTERNATE WAY OF 

COMMUNICATING WITH INMATES

[ECF No. 56]

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 is Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief filed on November 19, 

2015. In his motion, Plaintiff asks that the Court issue an order directing CDCR Secretary Jeffrey 

Beard to permit Plaintiff to correspond with several inmate witnesses by confidential mail. 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) (“[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability 

constitutes the core of Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 63 Filed 12/09/15 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

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, Secretary Jeffrey Beard is not a party to this action and therefore the Court has 

no personal jurisdiction over Secretary Jeffrey Beard. Therefore, the Court will recommend that 

Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be denied.

Plaintiff asks in the alternative that he be permitted to correspond with other inmates by mail 

through the Clerk of Court. Plaintiff’s proposed method of communication would circumvent Cal. 

Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3139(a), (b). which restricts an inmate’s ability to correspond with other 

inmates. Plaintiff provides no authority for this. The request should be denied.

RECOMMENDATION

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

for preliminary injunction and/or alternate method for corresponding with inmates 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 

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

///

///

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 63 Filed 12/09/15 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

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 9, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 63 Filed 12/09/15 Page 3 of 3