1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARD PHILLIP MCKENNA, Case No. 1:24-cv-00607-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 13 v. ACTION
14 CISNEROS, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 15 Defendants. COURT ORDER
16 (ECF No. 80) 17 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 18 19 I. Background 20 Plaintiff Edward Phillip McKenna (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 21 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was 22 transferred from the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern 23 District of California on May 21, 2024. (ECF No. 75.) The third amended complaint has not yet 24 been screened. (ECF No. 71.) 25 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s April 28, 2025 filing, docketed as a motion for 26 court order. (ECF No. 80.) In the motion, Plaintiff appears to allege that he is being retaliated 27 against with false RVRs so he can be transferred to a Level 4 yard, where he fears he will be 28 attacked or killed. Plaintiff appears to seek a court order to remove the allegedly false RVRs so 1 they cannot be used to keep setting Plaintiff up for future RVRs or assault. Plaintiff alleges that 2 he is being threatened to stop writing to the courts or filing grievances. Plaintiff has attached 60 3 pages of exhibits, which are not incorporated by reference. (Id.) 4 The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a request for preliminary injunctive relief. 5 II. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 6 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 7 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 8 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 9 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 10 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction 11 may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation 12 omitted). 13 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 14 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 15 have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); 16 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 17 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no 18 power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 19 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find 20 the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation 21 of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the 22 Federal right.” 23 Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 24 officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. 25 United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties 26 in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 27 U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 28 /// 1 Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks in this motion. The 2 Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental 3 entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s 4 complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to 5 state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant 6 who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 7 As noted above, the third amended complaint has not yet been screened. As such, this 8 action does not yet proceed on any cognizable claims, no defendant has been ordered served, and 9 no defendant has yet made an appearance. Thus, the Court at this time lacks personal jurisdiction 10 over any defendant or any other prison staff at any CDCR institution. Even if the Court had such 11 jurisdiction, Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to be incarcerated at a particular 12 correctional facility (or to not be transferred from one security level to another). Meachum v. 13 Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224–25 (1976); McCune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 38 (2002). The Court declines 14 to intercede in the security issue presented by preventing placement of inmates in particular 15 housing. 16 To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to raise new claims related to retaliation, the filing of 17 false RVRs, or other actions taken by correctional staff that Plaintiff believes is placing him in 18 danger, this action is not the appropriate way to raise these claims. If Plaintiff believes he has 19 suffered new or additional violations of his constitutional rights, he may wish to file a new and 20 separate civil rights action raising those claims. 21 With respect to the exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s filing, Plaintiff is advised that at the 22 screening stage, Plaintiff does not need to attach exhibits, or have the Court review video 23 evidence, to prove the truth of what is said in the complaint. For screening purposes, facts stated 24 in complaints are accepted as true. Furthermore, the Court will not serve as a repository for 25 evidence. 26 III. Order and Recommendation 27 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a 28 District Judge to this action. 1 Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for court order, 2 (ECF No. 80), be denied. 3 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 4 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 5 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may 6 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 7 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed 8 fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page 9 number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page 10 limit may not be considered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARD PHILLIP MCKENNA, Case No. 1:24-cv-00607-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 13 v. ACTION
14 CISNEROS, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 15 Defendants. COURT ORDER
16 (ECF No. 80) 17 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 18 19 I. Background 20 Plaintiff Edward Phillip McKenna (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 21 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was 22 transferred from the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern 23 District of California on May 21, 2024. (ECF No. 75.) The third amended complaint has not yet 24 been screened. (ECF No. 71.) 25 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s April 28, 2025 filing, docketed as a motion for 26 court order. (ECF No. 80.) In the motion, Plaintiff appears to allege that he is being retaliated 27 against with false RVRs so he can be transferred to a Level 4 yard, where he fears he will be 28 attacked or killed. Plaintiff appears to seek a court order to remove the allegedly false RVRs so 1 they cannot be used to keep setting Plaintiff up for future RVRs or assault. Plaintiff alleges that 2 he is being threatened to stop writing to the courts or filing grievances. Plaintiff has attached 60 3 pages of exhibits, which are not incorporated by reference. (Id.) 4 The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a request for preliminary injunctive relief. 5 II. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 6 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 7 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 8 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 9 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 10 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction 11 may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation 12 omitted). 13 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 14 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 15 have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); 16 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 17 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no 18 power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 19 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find 20 the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation 21 of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the 22 Federal right.” 23 Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 24 officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. 25 United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties 26 in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 27 U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 28 /// 1 Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks in this motion. The 2 Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental 3 entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s 4 complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to 5 state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant 6 who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 7 As noted above, the third amended complaint has not yet been screened. As such, this 8 action does not yet proceed on any cognizable claims, no defendant has been ordered served, and 9 no defendant has yet made an appearance. Thus, the Court at this time lacks personal jurisdiction 10 over any defendant or any other prison staff at any CDCR institution. Even if the Court had such 11 jurisdiction, Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to be incarcerated at a particular 12 correctional facility (or to not be transferred from one security level to another). Meachum v. 13 Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224–25 (1976); McCune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 38 (2002). The Court declines 14 to intercede in the security issue presented by preventing placement of inmates in particular 15 housing. 16 To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to raise new claims related to retaliation, the filing of 17 false RVRs, or other actions taken by correctional staff that Plaintiff believes is placing him in 18 danger, this action is not the appropriate way to raise these claims. If Plaintiff believes he has 19 suffered new or additional violations of his constitutional rights, he may wish to file a new and 20 separate civil rights action raising those claims. 21 With respect to the exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s filing, Plaintiff is advised that at the 22 screening stage, Plaintiff does not need to attach exhibits, or have the Court review video 23 evidence, to prove the truth of what is said in the complaint. For screening purposes, facts stated 24 in complaints are accepted as true. Furthermore, the Court will not serve as a repository for 25 evidence. 26 III. Order and Recommendation 27 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a 28 District Judge to this action. 1 Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for court order, 2 (ECF No. 80), be denied. 3 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 4 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 5 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may 6 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 7 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed 8 fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page 9 number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page 10 limit may not be considered. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 11 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 12 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 13 v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15
16 Dated: May 1, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28