(PC) Jones v. Speidell ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES B. JONES, Case No. 1:16-cv-01335-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 13 v. (Doc. 65) 14 R. SPEIDELL, M. STEWART, 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint for claims of First 19 Amendment retaliation, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 28.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants 20 Speidell and Stewart, former correctional lieutenants at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP), issued 21 a false rules violation report (RVR) against him in retaliation for his filing of an administrative 22 grievance. (Doc. 21.) 23 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “motion for an injunctive relief order and request for 24 maximum fines.” (Doc. 65.) The Court construes the filing as a motion for a preliminary 25 injunction. In his motion, Plaintiff alleges that prison officials at California State Prison, Corcoran 26 (CSP-Corcoran) obstructed his access to the courts by restricting his access to his property during 27 a COVID-19-related quarantine. (See id. at 2-6.) Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an order directing Correctional Captain Brown, Correctional Lieutenant Silva, the warden of CSP- 1 Corcoran, and the director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 2 (CDCR) “to release [his] property so [he] can freely prosecute [his] cases.” (Id. at 2, 7.) Plaintiff 3 also requests that the Court impose fines against the officials for violating his constitutional 4 rights. (Id.) 5 II. DISCUSSION 6 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 7 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 8 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 9 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 10 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20. 11 In addition, a “federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction 12 over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the 13 rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). 14 “[A]n injunction must be narrowly tailored ‘to affect only those persons over which it has power,’ 15 … and to remedy only the specific harms shown by the plaintiffs, rather than ‘to enjoin all 16 possible breaches of the law.’” Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) 17 (quoting Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727, 728 n.1). 18 As an initial matter, the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the individuals 19 against whom Plaintiff seeks an injunction, i.e., Captain Brown, Lieutenant Silva, the warden of 20 CSP-Corcoran, and the secretary of CDCR. In this case, the Court only has personal jurisdiction 21 over the parties, i.e., Plaintiff and Defendants Speidell and Stewart. 22 In addition, the claims in Plaintiff’s motion are unrelated to the claims at issue in this case. 23 As described above, Plaintiff’s operative claims are for First Amendment retaliation, based on his 24 allegation that Defendants issued a false RVR in retaliation for his filing a grievance while at 25 KVSP. (Doc. 28.) Plaintiff’s claims in his motion, on the other hand, are access-to-court claims 26 based on the confiscation of his property during a quarantine at CSP-Corcoran. (Doc. 65.) When a 27 plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have 1 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015). “Because the Court only has jurisdiction over the operative claims 2 in the [c]omplaint,” which do not include the claims in Plaintiff’s motion, the Court lacks the 3 authority to provide the injunctive relief that Plaintiff seeks. Smith v. Rios, No. 1:10-cv-1554- 4 AWI-MJS, 2010 WL 4603959, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (citations omitted). 5 III. ORDER 6 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.1 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: March 12, 2021 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1