(PC) Fernandez v. Satterfield ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JORGE FERNANDEZ, Case No. 1:19-cv-01220-DAD-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 v. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 14 SATTERFIELD, et al., (Doc. 26) 15 Defendants. 14-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “motion for emergency injunctive relief.” (Doc. 26.) The 18 Court construes Plaintiff’s filing as a motion for a preliminary injunction. For the reasons set 19 forth below, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s motion be denied. 20 I. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 21 Plaintiff contends the four defendants in this action—Correctional Officers Satterfield, 22 Eslick, Jackson, and Salzer—plus ten other correctional officers at Sierra Conservation Center are 23 “under penalty of perjury” and have conspired to harass and retaliate against him. (See Doc. 26 at 24 2.) Plaintiff alleges that an inmate assaulted him on April 14, 2020 at the direction of these 25 officers, “yet Plaintiff was written up a rules violation report for defending himself.” (Id. at 3.) As 26 a result, Plaintiff believes his life is in “[i]mmediate danger.” (Id.). Plaintiff requests that the 27 Court order the officers to cease their harassment, including their issuing of “rules violation reports justifying [his] C-status and transfer to a level four … institution known for violence.” (Id. 1 at 2-3.) 2 II. DISCUSSION 3 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 4 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 5 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 6 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 7 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20. “The equitable remedy is 8 unavailable absent a showing of irreparable injury, a requirement that cannot be met where there 9 is no showing of any real or immediate threat that the plaintiff will be wronged again—a 10 likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 11 U.S. 95, 111 (1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 12 Additionally, a “federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction 13 over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the 14 rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). 15 “[A]n injunction must be narrowly tailored ‘to affect only those persons over which it has power,’ 16 … and to remedy only the specific harms shown by the plaintiffs, rather than ‘to enjoin all 17 possible breaches of the law.’” Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) 18 (quoting Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727, 728 n.1). 19 Plaintiff does not show that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Plaintiff’s 20 contentions that fourteen correctional officers are conspiring to retaliate against him by issuing 21 false rules violation reports, transferring him to a prison “known for violence,” and directing an 22 inmate assault against him and thereby placing his life in danger, are not supported by any 23 adequate factual allegations. While detailed factual allegations are not required, “[t]hreadbare 24 recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not 25 suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). Except for his allegation 26 that an inmate assaulted him on April 14, 2020, Plaintiff provides no factual matter regarding his 27 claims, only conclusory assertions. 1 the Court denies his requested relief. Plaintiff’s contention that his life is in danger as a result of 2 an assault and a theoretical transfer to a “level-four” prison is purely speculative. “Issuing a 3 preliminary injunction based only on a possibility of irreparable harm is inconsistent with our 4 characterization of injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a 5 clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22 (citation omitted). 6 Plaintiff does not make that showing. 7 Lastly, Plaintiff’s requested relief—including that the Court order ten non-parties to 8 “discontinue any and all forms of harassment” (Doc. 26 at 2)—is overly broad. As stated above, 9 the Court has personal jurisdiction only over the parties to this action and may not “enjoin all 10 possible breaches of the law.” Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727, 728 n.1 (internal quotation marks and 11 citation omitted). “A district court’s power to issue a preliminary injunction should not be broader 12 in scope with respect to nonparties than its powers following a full trial on the merits.” Id. at 728 13 n.1. Plaintiff’s requested relief would fall outside the Court’s powers following a trial in this 14 matter.1 15 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 16 For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for a 17 preliminary injunction be DENIED. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to 18 the District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(l). 19 Within 14 days of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file 20 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate 21 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may 22 result in waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 23 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: May 20, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 1