Ricky Angelo Mendoza v. Rubacava, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 22, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00587
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICKY ANGELO MENDOZA, Case No. 1:25-cv-00587-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 13 v. ACTION

14 RUBACAVA, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 15 Defendants. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

16 (ECF No. 9) 17 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 18 19 I. Background 20 Plaintiff Ricky Angelo Mendoza (“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. The complaint has not yet 22 been screened. 23 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, filed 24 September 19, 2025. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff contends that institution staff is denying access to 25 the court and frustrating his ability to file this claim. Plaintiff asserts that the docket sheet states 26 that consent forms were served on the institution by e-file and the due date was June 23, 2025. 27 However, the documents were not issued to Plaintiff until August 8, 2025. Plaintiff further 28 asserts that the institution is attempting to sabotage his claims by allowing timeframes to expire, 1 and it willfully held onto Plaintiff’s legal work from May 19, 2025, to August 8, 2025. Plaintiff 2 additionally claims that the motion was served “without a signing of receiving through legal mail 3 acknowledging date served to avoid accountability.” (Id. at 2.) 4 Plaintiff requests “that due to [the] fault being completely on the conduct of the institution 5 that the late submittance be counted as timely and no adverse implication be counted against 6 plaintiff’s good faith.” (Doc. 9 at 2.) Plaintiff also indicates that it stated in the docket that 7 Plaintiff did not request “Demand for Jury Trial.” Plaintiff asks if this can be corrected as he did 8 “Demand for Jury Trial.” (Id.) Plaintiff also asks the Court to review another matter filed in this 9 Court in which the facility reportedly did the exact same thing and “an order to show cause on 10 why not to dismiss was issued.” (Id.) 11 II. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 12 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 13 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 14 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 15 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 16 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction 17 may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation 18 omitted). 19 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 20 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 21 have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); 22 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 23 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no 24 power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 25 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find 26 the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation 27 of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the 28 Federal right.” 1 Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 2 officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. 3 United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties 4 in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 5 U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 6 The injunctive relief that Plaintiff seeks in this action is unclear, but it appears that he is 7 complaining about delayed receipt of mail sent to him by the Court, and he is requesting that a 8 recent filing be accepted as timely and that a purported notation on the docket regarding his 9 demand for a jury trial be corrected. To the extent Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, Plaintiff 10 has not met the requirements for such relief. The Court is required to screen complaints brought 11 by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 12 governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is 13 subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may 14 be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 15 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 16 The complaint has not yet been screened, and this action does not yet proceed on any 17 cognizable claims, no defendant has been ordered served, and no defendant has yet made an 18 appearance. Thus, the Court at this time lacks personal jurisdiction over any defendant or any 19 other prison staff at any CDCR institution, and it cannot issue an order requiring them to take or 20 forbid them from taking any action. 21 Further, Plaintiff’s motion makes no showing that he will suffer irreparable harm in the 22 absence of an injunction, that the balances of equities tips in his favor, or that an injunction is in 23 the public interest. To the extent Plaintiff is concerned about delays in his receipt of mail from 24 the Court resulting in missed deadlines, Plaintiff is not precluded from requesting appropriate 25 extensions of time supported by good cause. Moreover, because the Court has not yet screened 26 the complaint, there are no currently outstanding Court-ordered deadlines. As a final matter, to 27 the extent Plaintiff seeks to correct a notation on the docket regarding his demand for jury trial, 28 the Court has not identified any such notation. 1 III. Order and Recommendation 2 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a 3 District Judge to this action. 4 Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary 5 injunction, (ECF No. 9), be denied. 6 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 7 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 8 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 9 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 10 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed 11 fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page 12 number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page 13 limit may not be considered. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 14 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 15 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 16 v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18

19 Dated: September 22, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28