(PC) Storm v. Newsom

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 23, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00236
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DIMITRI Z. STORM, Case No. 1:24-cv-00236-BAM (PC) 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 9 v. ACTION 10 NEWSOM, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR 11 Defendants. RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 12 (Doc. 1) 13 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 14

15 Plaintiff Dimitri Z. Storm (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 16 pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 22, 2024, the Court 17 screened Plaintiff's original complaint and found that it failed to comply with Federal Rule of 18 Civil Procedure 8 and failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. The Court granted Plaintiff 19 leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. (Doc. 9.) Concurrent with his 20 original complaint, Plaintiff sought a restraining order and a preliminary injunction. (See Doc. 1.) 21 I. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction 22 Plaintiff alleges the Warden of the California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility 23 (“SATF”), officers of California Department of Corrections Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), and staff at 24 SATF have been involved in handling Plaintiff’s property and effects. Plaintiff alleges they are 25 now in possession of his J-Pay tablet that was illegally stolen along with legal documents and 26 files sent to Plaintiff from the FBI, CIA, and DIA and other entities. They engaged in a 27 conspiracy to defraud and steal Plaintiff’s personal property. SATF “E” Facility CDCR officers 28 1 still have possession of his stolen J-Pay tablet and his legal documents and files that they stole 2 from Plaintiff on March 21, 2023 in Building #5. Plaintiff alleges conspiracy, theft, forgery 3 involving CDCR officers for false statements and false reports and tampering with evidence. 4 In his complaint, Plaintiff requests the retention of his property pending disposition of the 5 investigation into the defendants’ actions. Plaintiff requests that all camera footage and body 6 worn camera footage be retained for March 21, 2023 from 9:30 a.am to 3:00 pm. in E Facility, 7 Building #5. Plaintiff's request is construed as a motion for preliminary injunction. 8 II. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 9 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 10 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 11 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 12 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 13 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction 14 may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation 15 omitted). 16 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 17 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 18 have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); 19 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 20 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no 21 power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 22 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find 23 the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation 24 of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the 25 Federal right.” 26 Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 27 officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. 28 United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court's jurisdiction is limited to the parties 1 in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 2 U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 3 “A federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the 4 parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of 5 persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. U.S. Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 6 1985). 7 III. Discussion 8 Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks in this motion. The 9 Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental 10 entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s 11 complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to 12 state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant 13 who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 14 Plaintiff’s complaint has been screened, and it fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. 15 Therefore, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff has shown a likelihood of success on the merits. In 16 addition, no defendant has been ordered served, and no defendant has yet made an appearance. 17 The Court must deny Plaintiff's motion because it lacks jurisdiction over CDCR generally, or any 18 staff apparently responsible for taking Plaintiff’s J-Pay tablet. Thus, the Court at this time lacks 19 personal jurisdiction over any staff or employees at Plaintiff’s current institution or any other 20 CDCR institution, and it cannot issue an order requiring them to take, or forbid them from taking, 21 any action. 22 Further, Plaintiff’s motion makes no showing that he will suffer irreparable harm in the 23 absence of an injunction, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, or that an injunction is in 24 the public interest. Plaintiff has a statutory remedy for wrongful taking of his property. 25 IV. Conclusion and Recommendation 26 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign a 27 District Judge to this action. 28 /// 1 Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion for a 2 restraining order and preliminary injunction (Doc. 1) be DENIED. 3 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 4 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 Recommendation, Plaintiff may file 6 written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 7 Judge's Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 8 the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate's factual 9 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 10 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

13 Dated: August 23, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28