(PC) Castro v. Waddle ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL Z. CASTRO, No. 1:20-cv-01454-NONE-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND/OR TEMPORARY 14 C. WADDLE, RESTRAINING ORDER BE DENIED 15 Defendant. (ECF No. 11) 16 TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 17 18 Plaintiff Daniel Z. Castro (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis, filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order on 20 November 20, 2020. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff requests an order prohibiting him from being 21 transferred to another facility and to grant him single cell status. (Id. at 4). For the foregoing 22 reasons, the Court recommends denying Plaintiff’s motion. 23 I. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 24 “A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and 25 subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons 26 not before the court.” Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). “A federal court is 27 without personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been served in accordance 28 with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.” Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir. 1986); accord S.E.C. v. Ross, 1 504 F.3d 1130, 1140 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]n order for the court to assert personal jurisdiction over 2 a party-in-interest, the party must be properly served.”). Relatedly, under Federal Rule of Civil 3 Procedure 65(d)(2), an injunction binds only “the parties to the action,” their “officers, agents, 4 servants, employees, and attorneys,” and “other persons who are in active concert or 5 participation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(A)-(C). “When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based 6 on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.” 7 Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015). 8 An injunction must be “(1) directed to a party, (2) enforceable by contempt, and (3) 9 designed to accord or protect some or all of the substantive relief sought by a complaint in more 10 than preliminary fashion.” Orange Cnty. v. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp., 52 F.3d 821, 11 825-26 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 12 “To obtain a preliminary injunction, [a party] must show either (1) a likelihood of success 13 on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or (2) the existence of serious questions 14 going to the merits and the balance of hardships tipping in [the party’s] favor.” Nike, Inc. v. 15 McCarthy, 379 F.3d 576, 580 (9th Cir. 2004) 16 Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the 17 Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find that the “relief [sought] is 18 narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right, 19 and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right.” 20 II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 21 In relevant part, Plaintiff’s motion states as follows: 22 1) I am currently under the direct control of JEFF LYNCH the warden at 23 california state prison sacramento. Located at 300 prison road, repress,ca95671. 2) Directly due to actions of Correctional OFFICER’S named and un-named within 24 the above action. My LIFE IS IN [jeopardy] from security threat groups. Located within the prison system. 3) The other prison GANG known as 25 G-R-E-E-N-W-A-L-L…..[an organization of CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT of CORRECTIONS OFFICERS] 26 27 WHO USE OTHER PRISONERS TO ASSAULT and or KILL…prisoners who file paperwork,litigation,and or cause 28 waves to there program. 4) SINGLE CELL STATUS/HOUSING is the only way 1 to ensure my safety. 5) SINGLE CELL STATUS/HOUSING is the only way to ensure that documents gathered in this case. will not be destroyed by another 2 prisoner placed into my cell by the GREENWALL. 6) SINGLE CELL STATUS/HOUSING is the only way to ensure that sworn statements made by 3 other prisoners will not be discovered by the greenwall. 4 (ECF No. 11 at 2) (as in original). 5 The motion seeks the following relief: 6 7 PLAINTIFF seeks an ORDER that Defendant(s) and their employer The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations adult director Kathleen 8 ALLISON. Be ORDERED to SINGLE CELL HOUSE THE PLAINTIFF. TO NOT TRANSFER THE PLAINTIFF. 9 10 (Id. at 1) (as in original). 11 III. APPLICATION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 12 The Court recommends denying Plaintiff’s motion. 13 First, Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits. The Court has entered a screening 14 order, recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed for failure to comply with Federal 15 Rule of Civil Procedure 8. (ECF No. 16). As such, Plaintiff has not shown “a likelihood of 16 success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury,” which would permit the Court to 17 enter an injunction. See Nike, 379 F.3d at 580. 18 Second, the injunction does not relate to Plaintiff’s claims in this case. Plaintiff’s 19 complaint, which Plaintiff filed on October 6, 2020, (ECF No. 1), has no supporting facts 20 whatsoever. It thus does not include allegations that would support Plaintiff’s request for an 21 injunction. Because Plaintiff’s requested relief is not tied to Plaintiff’s complaint in this case, the 22 Court lacks authority to issue the complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC, 810 F.3d at 633 23 (“When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court 24 does not have the authority to issue an injunction.”); see also Nike, 379 F.3d at 580 (party “may 25 obtain a preliminary injunction” upon “the existence of serious questions going to the merits and 26 the balance of hardships tipping in [the party’s] favor”). 27 Third, Plaintiff has not shown why the proposed injunction “is narrowly drawn, extends 28 no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right, and is the least intrusive 1 | means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). 2 | Rather, he makes the blanket statement that his proposed relief is necessary. That does not 3 | suffice. 4 Fourth, the injunction is not directed at the Defendant. It is unclear that Defendant has the 5 | authority to grant Plaintiff's requested relief. Plaintiff also asks the Court to order CDCR adult 6 | director Kathleen Allison to provide single-cell housing for Plaintiff. Allison is not a party to this 7 | action. Thus, it is improper to direct an injunction to her. See Orange Cnty., 52 F.3d at 825-26 8 | IV. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that 10 | Plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 11) be DENIED without prejudice. 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge 12 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one 13 | (21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 14 | objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 15 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 16 | the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 17 | 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 | Dated: _ January 4, 2021 [Jee hey □ 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28