(PC) Norris v. Youngblood ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 URIE NORRIS, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-00704-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DIRECINT CLERK OF COURT TO 13 v. ) RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION 14 DONNY YOUNGBLOOD, et al., ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. ) RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION ) FOR SANCTIONS BE DENIED 16 ) ) (ECF No. 13) 17 ) 18 Plaintiff Urie Norris is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, filed August 3, 2021. (ECF No. 21 13.) 22 I. 23 LEGAL STANDARD 24 Procedurally, a federal district court may issue emergency injunctive relief only if it has 25 personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. See Murphy 26 Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that one “becomes a 27 party officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of summons or other 28 authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the party serve must appear to defend.). 1 Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in 2 general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 3 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the 4 viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 5 599 F.3d at 969. 6 A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary measure of relief that a federal court may 7 impose without notice to the adverse party if, in an affidavit or verified complaint, the moving party 8 “clearly show[s] that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant 9 before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). The standard for 10 issuing a temporary restraining order is essentially the same as that for issuing a preliminary 11 injunction. Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) 12 (analysis for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions is “substantially identical”). 13 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. 14 Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 15 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 16 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 17 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction may 18 only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted). 19 “Under Winter, plaintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in order to 20 obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th 21 Cir. 2011). 22 Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison 23 Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, 24 extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive 25 means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” Section 3626(a)(2) also places 26 significant limits upon a court’s power to grant preliminary injunctive relief to inmates. “Section 27 3626(a) therefore operates simultaneously to restrict the equity jurisdiction of federal courts and to 28 protect the bargaining power of prison administrators – no longer may courts grant or approve relief 1 that binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.” Gilmore v. People of 2 the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2000). 3 II. 4 DISCUSSION 5 In his request, Plaintiff seeks a court order directing that prison officials to stop interfering with 6 the processing of his legal mail. 7 First, at this juncture of the case, the Court cannot determine that Plaintiff is likely to succeed 8 on the merits of the case as the case has yet to be screened. Second, the United States Marshal has yet 9 to effect service on any Defendant, and Defendants have no actual notice. Therefore, the Court has no 10 personal jurisdiction over any Defendant at this time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2); Murphy Bros., Inc. v. 11 Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999); Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727-28 12 (9th Cir. 1983). Third, even if the Court had personal jurisdiction over the individuals named in the 13 complaint, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate imminent irreparable harm necessary to support a 14 preliminary injunction. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20; Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 15 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction must be 16 denied. 17 III. 18 ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION 19 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly 20 assign a District Judge to this action. 21 Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction 22 (ECF No. 13), be DENIED. 23 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 25 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections 26 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 27 Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 28 result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson 1 || v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Ci 2 || 1991)). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. ot fe 5 Dated: _ August 4, 2021 LF 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28