(PC) Hammler v. The State of California ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLEN HAMMLER, Case No. 1:19-cv-00785-NONE-JDP 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 v. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE DENIED 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., ECF No. 12 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Allen Hammler moves for a preliminary injunction to cure ongoing and recurring 18 assault and battery. ECF No. 12. He seeks a court order “directing defendant(s) who are in 19 authority to do so to place the plaintiff on video escort.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff, in a one-page 20 declaration, states that he has “been repeatedly assaulted by C/O(s) at CSPC, three times in the 21 last month incurring a fractured skull, nose, and three broken ribs.” Id. at 2. On September 9, 22 2019, while Hammler was hospitalized in Bakersfield, defendant Cervantes came to the hospital 23 to threaten and further beat him. Id. Plaintiff claims that all his pens except one were confiscated 24 and so he does not have the ability to fully set forth his allegations. Id. 25 A federal district court may issue injunctive relief only if the court has both personal 26 jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. See Murphy Bros., 27 Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that one “becomes a party 28 officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of summons or other 1 authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the party served must appear to 2 defend”). The court may not determine the rights of persons not before it. See Hitchman Coal & 3 Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 234-35 (1916); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 4 1983); see also Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979) (injunctive relief must be 5 “narrowly tailored to give only the relief to which plaintiffs are entitled”). Under Rule 65(d)(2), 6 an injunction binds only “the parties to the action,” their “officers, agents, servants, employees, 7 and attorneys,” and “other persons who are in active concert or participation.” Fed. R. Civ. 8 P. 65(d)(2)(A)-(C). 9 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on 10 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 11 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Glossip v. 12 Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2736-37 (2015) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 13 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). “[P]laintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in 14 order to obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 15 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). In addition to establishing irreparable harm, the injunctive relief 16 sought must be related to the claims brought in the complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC 17 v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015) (“When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief 18 based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an 19 injunction.”). A permanent injunction may be granted only after a final hearing on the merits. 20 See MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 520 (9th Cir.1993) (“As a general rule, 21 a permanent injunction will be granted when liability has been established . . . .”). 22 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) imposes additional requirements on prisoner 23 litigants who seek preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials. In such cases, 24 “[p]reliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to 25 correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means 26 necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). As the Ninth Circuit has previously 27 observed, the PLRA places significant limits upon a court’s power to grant preliminary injunctive 28 relief to inmates, and “operates simultaneously to restrict the equity jurisdiction of federal courts 1 and to protect the bargaining power of prison administrators—no longer may courts grant or 2 approve relief that binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.” 3 Gilmore v. People of the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2000). 4 Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief should be denied without prejudice because he has 5 not established the elements necessary to obtain injunctive relief. Plaintiff does not identify 6 whom he is seeking to enjoin. He also has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. 7 He has been ordered to pay his filing fee, ECF No. 13, and his motion for reconsideration of that 8 order is currently pending, ECF No. 14. Plaintiff does allege past assaults by unknown persons 9 and threats of further assaults by defendant Cervantes. However, these allegations are so brief 10 and conclusory that it is difficult for the court to assess their likelihood. Finally, plaintiff does not 11 define “video escort” or explain either how the relief he seeks would remedy the alleged harms or 12 whether it is narrowly drawn to be the least intrusive means, as required by the PLRA. Should 13 plaintiff wish to file another motion for injunctive relief, he should address all elements necessary 14 to obtain injunctive relief. Plaintiff should also make sure that his request for injunctive relief is 15 narrow—as required by the PLRA. 16 Findings and Recommendations 17 I recommend that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, ECF No. 12, be denied 18 without prejudice. These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the U.S. district 19 judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 fourteen days of service of these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written 21 objections with the court. If a party files objections, that party should do so in a document 22 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. : —N prssann — Dated: _ November 2, 2020 4 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28