(PC) Hammler v. Clark ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLEN HAMMLER, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-00373-AWI-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 13 v. ) REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 14 CLARK, et.al., ) ) [ECF No. 64] 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) ) 17 ) 18 Plaintiff Allen Hammler is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed December 21 23, 2019. 22 I. 23 DISCUSSION 24 The purpose of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction is to preserve the 25 status quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to 26 intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of 27 Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction [or 28 temporary restraining order] must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely 1 to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 2 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 3 Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 4 “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be 5 granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. 6 Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). A party 7 seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction simply cannot prevail when that motion 8 is unsupported by evidence. 9 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary 10 injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it an 11 actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge 12 Christian Coll. V. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If 13 the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in 14 question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the 15 Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, 16 extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive 17 means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 A federal court may issue emergency injunctive relief only if it has personal jurisdiction over 19 the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. See Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe 20 Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that one “becomes a party officially, and is required 21 to take action in that capacity, only upon service of summons or other authority-asserting measure stating 22 the time within which the party served must appear to defend.”). The Court may not attempt to 23 determine the rights of persons not before it. See Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 24 234-35 (1916); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 1983). 25 Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction seeks a court order directing prison officials at California 26 State Prison, Corcoran to stop, intermittently, serving his food that does not comport with his religious 27 beliefs. This action is proceeding against Defendants Gamboa, Peterson, Garza, Saucedo, Uhlik and 28 Clark for violation of the First Amendment, namely, failure to provide appropriate food to accommodate 1 || his religious beliefs. “The fact that Plaintiff has met the pleading requirements allowing him to procee 2 || with the complaint does not, ipso facto, entitle him to a preliminary injunction.” Claiborne v. Blause 3 || No. 2:10-cv-2427 LKK, 2011 WL 3875892, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2011), report and recommendatic 4 || adopted, 2011 WL 4765000 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2011). Plaintiff has failed to “clearly show” that | 5 || currently faces “immediate and irreparable loss or injury” based on the claim that he is occasional 6 || served food that does not comport with his religious beliefs. In addition, at the pleading stage, the Cou 7 || cannot determine that whether Plaintiff's claim has merit, versus a determination that his claim has bee 8 || plausibly stated. Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). Indeed, Defendants ha 9 ||not yet filed an answer or submitted evidence. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motions for a preliminai 10 || injunction should be denied. 11 Il. 12 RECOMMENDATION 13 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 14 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen (14) days 15 || after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with 16 the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 17 || Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 18 || result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) 19 || (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 20 21 IS SO ORDERED. A (ee 22 || Dated: _ December 27, 2019 OF " 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28