(PC) Bradford v. Usher ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, ) Case No.: 1:17-cv-01128-SAB (PC) ) 9 Plaintiff, ) 10 v. ) ) O MR OD TE IOR N D FE ON RY I EN MG E P RL GA EI NN CT YIF F R’ ES L S IEE FC OND 11 C. OGBUEHI, et al. ) (ECF No. 87) ) 12 Defendants. ) ) 13 ) 14 Plaintiff Raymond Alford Bradford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 15 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 16 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion for emergency relief, filed on October 17 15, 2020. 18 I. 19 DISCUSSION 20 The purpose of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction is to preserve the 21 status quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to 22 intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of 23 Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction [or 24 temporary restraining order] must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely 25 to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 26 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 27 Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 28 /// 1 “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be 2 granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. 3 Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). A 4 party seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction simply cannot prevail when that 5 motion is unsupported by evidence. 6 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary 7 injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it 8 an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge 9 Christian Coll. V. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If 10 the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in 11 question. Id. 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 the “relief [sought] is narrowly 13 drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least 14 intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 15 In his present motion, Plaintiff contends that he has tested positive for Valley Fever and is 16 under imminent danger of irreparable harm. 17 This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s claim against defendants Usher, Rimbach, German, 18 Ulit, Spaeth, and Sao for violation of the Eighth Amendment, based on Plaintiff’s allegations related to 19 Valley Fever while housed at Kern Valley State Prison. (ECF No. 21.) The pendency of this case 20 does not provide Plaintiff with standing to seek relief directed at remedying his current conditions of 21 confinement, which are occurring at a different prison and which involve different prison employees. 22 Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009) (citation omitted); Lujan v. Defenders of 23 Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). 24 Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief that is not narrowly drawn to correct the violation of his rights at 25 issue in this action. The constitutional and statutory requirements applicable to equitable relief 26 preclude Plaintiff from entitlement to generalized relief such an order directing that prison officials 27 allow Plaintiff to receive his legal property. The equitable relief requested herein is not sufficiently 28 related to Plaintiff’s underlying legal claims to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements that apply to 1 || federal courts. Moreover, Plaintiff may not seek injunctive relief against an individual who is not 2 || party to the instant action. “A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction ov 3 || the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights | 4 || persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9 5 || Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). 6 Here, the Court does not have jurisdiction over any parties at Salina Valley State Prison, whe: 7 || Plaintiff is currently housed. Furthermore even if the Court did not have jurisdiction over tho 8 || individuals, Plaintiff has failed to establish the imminent irreparable harm required to support 9 || preliminary injunction. Indeed, the medical document attached to Plaintiff's motion specifically stat 10 that a chronic care appointment has been scheduled for Plaintiff. CECF No. 87 at 3.) Plaintiff hi: 11 || failed to establish that there is a threat of future or repeated injury that is both “real and immediate 12 || not just “conjectural” or “hypothetical.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102. 13 Il. 14 ORDER 15 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's second motion for 16 || emergency relief is denied. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. A (Fe 19 ll Dated: _ October 19, 2020 OF ; 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28