(PC) McKenna v. Cisneros

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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 CISNEROS, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 15 Defendants. COURT ORDER 16 (ECF No. 80) 17 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE I. Background 20 Plaintiff Edward Phillip McKenna (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was transferred from the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 21, 2024. (ECF No. 75.) The third amended complaint has not yet been screened. (ECF No. 71.)

25 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s April 28, 2025 filing, docketed as a motion for court order. (ECF No. 80.) In the motion, Plaintiff appears to allege that he is being retaliated against with false RVRs so he can be transferred to a Level 4 yard, where he fears he will be attacked or killed. Plaintiff appears to seek a court order to remove the allegedly false RVRs so they cannot be used to keep setting Plaintiff up for future RVRs or assault. Plaintiff alleges that he is being threatened to stop writing to the courts or filing grievances. Plaintiff has attached 60 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 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted).

13 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); 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 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 the “relief [sought] 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.”

23 Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 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 Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant 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 action does not yet proceed on any cognizable claims, no defendant has been ordered served, and no defendant has yet made an appearance. Thus, the Court at this time lacks personal jurisdiction over any defendant or any other prison staff at any CDCR institution. Even if the Court had such jurisdiction, Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to be incarcerated at a particular correctional facility (or to not be transferred from one security level to another). Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224–25 (1976); McCune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 38 (2002). The Court declines to intercede in the security issue presented by preventing placement of inmates in particular housing.

16 To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to raise new claims related to retaliation, the filing of false RVRs, or other actions taken by correctional staff that Plaintiff believes is placing him in danger, this action is not the appropriate way to raise these claims. If Plaintiff believes he has suffered new or additional violations of his constitutional rights, he may wish to file a new and separate civil rights action raising those claims.

21 With respect to the exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s filing, Plaintiff is advised that at the screening stage, Plaintiff does not need to attach exhibits, or have the Court review video evidence, to prove the truth of what is said in the complaint. For screening purposes, facts stated in complaints are accepted as true. Furthermore, the Court will not serve as a repository for evidence.

26 III. Order and Recommendation 27 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a District Judge to this action.

1 Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for court order, (ECF No. 80), be denied.

3 These Findings and Recommendations will be 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 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limit may not be considered. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 Dated: May 1, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE