From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Caver v. E. Gomez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 19, 2015
Case No. 1:11-cv-01025-AWI-SKO (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 1:11-cv-01025-AWI-SKO (PC)

10-19-2015

DENELL CAVER, Plaintiff, v. E. GOMEZ, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND REQUESTING DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL PROVIDE A STATUS REPORT WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS (Doc. 100)

Plaintiff Denell Caver ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 20, 2011. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's second amended complaint, filed on April 10, 2012, against Defendants Gomez, Stark, and Garcia ("Defendants") for acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's safety, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Jury trial is scheduled for February 9, 2016.

On September 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order requiring prison officials at California State Prison-Corcoran provide him with access to his legal property. Plaintiff represents that all of his property, including his legal material, was confiscated, preventing him from preparing for the upcoming trial. Defendants did not file a response. Local Rule 230(l).

The analysis for a temporary restraining order is substantially identical to that for a preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush and Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). --------

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673 (1994), and the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue any orders regarding Plaintiff's current conditions of confinement, including access to legal property, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (1992); Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). However, Plaintiff's need to prepare for trial requires some accommodation from prison officials. See Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1243-44 (9th Cir. 2013); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2011). Therefore, Defendants' counsel is requested to contact the Litigation Coordinator regarding Plaintiff's ability to access his legal material for this case and to file a status report within fifteen days. The Court notes that Plaintiff already filed his pretrial statement and a motion seeking the attendance of two inmate witnesses.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order is HEREBY DENIED for lack of jurisdiction, and within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of this order, Defendants' counsel SHALL file a status report in compliance with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 19, 2015

/s/_________

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Caver v. E. Gomez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 19, 2015
Case No. 1:11-cv-01025-AWI-SKO (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2015)
Case details for

Caver v. E. Gomez

Case Details

Full title:DENELL CAVER, Plaintiff, v. E. GOMEZ, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Oct 19, 2015

Citations

Case No. 1:11-cv-01025-AWI-SKO (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2015)