Patrick A. Cannavan v. Macomber, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 18, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01654
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 PATRICK A. CANNAVAN, Case No. 1:25-cv-01654-BAM (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 11 v. ACTION

12 MACOMBER, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 Defendants. ALIAS WRIT

14 (ECF No. 11) 15 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 16 17 I. Background 18 Plaintiff Patrick A. Cannavan (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 19 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint has not yet 20 been screened. 21 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for alias writ, filed December 11, 2025. 22 (ECF No. 11.) Although the precise request is unclear, Plaintiff appears to be requesting that the 23 Court issue orders upholding various laws, finding that Plaintiff has stated cognizable legal 24 claims, and awarding damages and injunctive relief relating to legal assistance for inmates. (See 25 id. at 56.) 26 II. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 27 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 28 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 1 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 2 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 3 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction 4 may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation 5 omitted). 6 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 7 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 8 have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); 9 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 10 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no 11 power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 12 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find 13 the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation 14 of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the 15 Federal right.” 16 Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 17 officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. 18 United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties 19 in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 20 U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 21 Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks in this motion. The 22 Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental 23 entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s 24 complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to 25 state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant 26 who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 27 As noted above, the complaint has not yet been screened. As such, this action does not 28 yet proceed on any cognizable claims, no defendant has been ordered served, and no defendant 1 has yet made an appearance. Thus, the Court at this time lacks personal jurisdiction over any 2 defendant or any other prison staff at any CDCR institution. 3 To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to raise new claims that are unrelated to those raised 4 in the original complaint, this motion is not the appropriate way to raise these claims. If Plaintiff 5 believes he has suffered new or additional violations of his constitutional rights, he may wish to 6 file a new and separate civil rights action raising those claims. 7 III. Order and Recommendation 8 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a 9 District Judge to this action. 10 Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for alias writ, 11 (ECF No. 11), be denied. 12 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 13 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may 15 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 16 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed 17 fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page 18 number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page 19 limit may not be considered. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 20 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 21 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 22 v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24

25 Dated: December 18, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26

27 28