(PC) Harris v. Parks ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TEVIN LEE HARRIS, Case No. 1:19-cv-00429-JDP 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN 13 v. INJUNCTION BE DENIED 14 E. PARKS, et al., ECF No. 10 15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS 16 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against defendants. ECF No. 10. For 20 the reasons discussed below, I recommend denying plaintiff’s motion. 21 I. Relief Requested 22 Although plaintiff’s motion is not easy to understand, he appears to be alleging past 23 violations of his rights and seeking an injunction barring similar violations in the future. See ECF 24 No. 10 at 1 (“The officials of this complaint but not limited to have all abused their authority and 25 or in some way have been deliberately indifferent to plaintiff and deprived plaintiff of [his] 26 constitutional rights, violated them, and federal and state laws.”) Plaintiff notes that he is in the 27 same prison system—although apparently not the same prison facility—as he was when the 28 events described in his complaint occurred. See id. Plaintiff references grievance forms that he 1 claims to have filed, although the forms are not attached to the motion. See id. Ultimately, I 2 cannot tell what specific harm or harms plaintiff seeks to remedy via injunction. See id. at 1-2. 3 II. Analysis 4 A federal district court may issue injunctive relief only if the court has both personal 5 jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. See Murphy Bros., 6 Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that one “becomes a party 7 officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of summons or other 8 authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the party served must appear to 9 defend”). The court may not determine the rights of persons not before it. See Hitchman Coal & 10 Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 234-35 (1916); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 11 1983); see also Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979) (injunctive relief must be 12 “narrowly tailored to give only the relief to which plaintiffs are entitled”). Under Rule 65(d)(2), 13 an injunction binds only “the parties to the action,” their “officers, agents, servants, employees, 14 and attorneys,” and “other persons who are in active concert or participation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 65(d)(2)(A)-(C). 16 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on 17 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 18 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Glossip v. 19 Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2736-37 (2015) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 20 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). “[P]laintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in 21 order to obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 22 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). In addition to establishing irreparable harm, the injunctive relief 23 sought must be related to the claims brought in the complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC 24 v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015) (“When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief 25 based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an 26 injunction.”). A permanent injunction may be granted only after a final hearing on the merits. 27 See MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 520 (9th Cir.1993) (“As a general rule, 28 a permanent injunction will be granted when liability has been established . . . .”). 1 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) imposes additional requirements on prisoner 2 litigants who seek preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials. In such cases, 3 “[p]reliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to 4 correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means 5 necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). As the Ninth Circuit has previously 6 observed, the PLRA places significant limits upon a court’s power to grant preliminary injunctive 7 relief to inmates, and “operates simultaneously to restrict the equity jurisdiction of federal courts 8 and to protect the bargaining power of prison administrators—no longer may courts grant or 9 approve relief that binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.” 10 Gilmore v. People of the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2000). 11 Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief should be denied. A permanent injunction would 12 be premature; there has been no final hearing on the merits. A temporary injunction would also 13 be inappropriate; plaintiff has not established the elements necessary to obtain injunctive relief. 14 His allegations are conclusory and bereft of detail. Plaintiff fails to establish that irreparable 15 harm is likely; he doesn’t even identify a specific harm that he fears will befall him. Instead, he 16 vaguely declares that he seeks “respect of his U.S. Constitutional rights” and wishes to be “free 17 from any harm.” ECF No. 10 at 2. Such broad demands do not justify injunctive relief. See 18 Cottrell, 632 F.3d at 1131. Plaintiff also fails to demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on the 19 merits. Plaintiff’s motion contains no evidence or documentation supporting either the assertions 20 in his motion or those in his complaint. See ECF No. 10. 21 III. Order 22 The clerk of court is directed to assign this case to a district judge. The undersigned will 23 remain as the magistrate judge assigned to the case. 24 IV. Recommendations 25 Accordingly, I recommend that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, ECF No. 10, be 26 denied. These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the U.S. district judge assigned 27 to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 28 service of these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the 1 | court. Ifa party files objections, that party should do so in a document captioned “Objections to 2 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. ° : —N prssann — Dated: _ October 22, 2019 6 UNI STATE AGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 | No. 204 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28