(PC) Lewis v. United States of America ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARWYN LEWIS, No. 1:20-cv-00693-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., (ECF No. 6) 15 Defendants. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO APPOINT 16 DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 Plaintiff Darwyn Lewis (“Plaintiff”), a federal inmate proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis, filed the civil rights complaint commencing this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 20 18, 2020. On June 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 6). That 21 motion is now before the Court. 22 I. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 23 “A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and 24 subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons 25 not before the court.” Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). “A federal court is 26 without personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been served in accordance 27 with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.” Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir. 1986); accord S.E.C. v. Ross, 28 504 F.3d 1130, 1140 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]n order for the court to assert personal jurisdiction over 1 a party-in-interest, the party must be properly served.”). Relatedly, under Federal Rule of Civil 2 Procedure 65(d)(2), an injunction binds only “the parties to the action,” their “officers, agents, 3 servants, employees, and attorneys,” and “other persons who are in active concert or 4 participation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(A)-(C). “When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based 5 on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.” 6 Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015). 7 An injunction must be “(1) ‘directed to a party,’ (2) ‘enforceable by contempt,’ and (3) 8 ‘designed to accord or protect some or all of the substantive relief sought by a complaint in more 9 than preliminary fashion.’” Orange Cnty. v. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp., 52 F.3d 821, 10 825-26 (9th Cir. 1995). 11 Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the 12 Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find that the “relief [sought] is 13 narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right, 14 and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right.” 15 II. APPLICATION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 16 Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief order reads as follows: 17 The Plaintiff, Darwyn Lewis, is asking the court / Judge for an Injunctive 18 Relief Order concerning his civil suit. The Plaintiff needs pictures and his blood drawn to show proof of his skin being discolored due to 19 contaminated water at Atwater USP. The Plaintiff has filed suit for punitive damages along with pain and suffering and needs the order 20 because he has been denied pictures as well as his blood being drawn, all denied by Atwater staff. 21 22 Plaintiff’s motion fails based on the legal standards above for at least three reasons. 23 First, the Court has not yet served any defendant, so it lacks personal jurisdiction over 24 anyone to grant the injunction. See Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727 (“A federal court may issue an 25 injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the 26 claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.”); S.E.C. v. Ross, 27 504 F.3d 1130, 1140 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]n order for the court to assert personal jurisdiction over 28 a party-in-interest, the party must be properly served.”). Thus, the Court cannot order an wOoe 4:OU VV IN NS OME IO Oe te □□□ VM VI 1 | injunction until after a party at whom the injunction is directed has been served. Because no one 2 | has been served, the Court cannot issue an injunction to bind anybody. 3 Second, it is not directed toward a party. Reading it liberally, it is directed to “Atwater 4 | staff,” but it is not clear who at Atwater should perform the actions. 5 Third, it is not “designed to accord or protect some or all of the substantive relief sought 6 | by acomplaint in more than preliminary fashion,” Orange Cnty., 52 F.3d at 825-26. The 7 | requested relief—having pictures taken and his blood drawn—will not provide the relief Plaintiff 8 | seeks in his amended complaint (money or, in the alternative, a suspended sentence). Rather, it 9 | seeks information Plaintiff can use in his lawsuit. If this case proceeds past screening, there will 10 | be an opportunity to seek discovery at that time. 11 Therefore, the Court recommends denying Plaintiffs motion. 12 | I. FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND ORDER 13 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that 14 | Plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief be DENIED without prejudice. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge 16 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. 0 636(b)(). Within twenty-one (21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 18 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 19 Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 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)). Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to assign a district judge to this case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 | Dated: _ August 20, 2020 [sf ey — UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28