(PC) Ward v. Raygoza ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD WILLIAM WARD, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-00903-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 13 v. ) RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION 14 CHRISTINE RAYGOZA, et al., ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 15 Defendants. ) RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED 16 ) ) (ECF No. 8) 17 ) 18 Plaintiff Ronald William Ward is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On July 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice with the Court in which he requests the “intervene” to 21 order the Coalinga State Hospital to provide him with legal postage and supplies. The Court construes 22 Plaintiff’s “notice” as a request for a preliminary injunction. 23 I. 24 LEGAL STANDARD 25 Procedurally, a federal district court may issue emergency injunctive relief only if it has 26 personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. See Murphy 27 Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that one “becomes a 28 party 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 serve must appear to defend.). 2 Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in 3 general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 4 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the 5 viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 6 599 F.3d at 969. 7 A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary measure of relief that a federal court may 8 impose without notice to the adverse party if, in an affidavit or verified complaint, the moving party 9 “clearly show[s] that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant 10 before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). The standard for 11 issuing a temporary restraining order is essentially the same as that for issuing a preliminary 12 injunction. Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) 13 (analysis for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions is “substantially identical”). 14 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. 15 Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 16 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 17 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 18 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction may 19 only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted). 20 “Under Winter, plaintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in order to 21 obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th 22 Cir. 2011). 23 Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison 24 Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, 25 extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive 26 means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” Section 3626(a)(2) also places 27 significant limits upon a court’s power to grant preliminary injunctive relief to inmates. “Section 28 3626(a) therefore operates simultaneously to restrict the equity jurisdiction of federal courts and to 1 protect the bargaining power of prison administrators – no longer may courts grant or approve relief 2 that binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.” Gilmore v. People of 3 the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2000). 4 II. 5 DISCUSSION 6 In his request, Plaintiff contends that does not have access to legal supplies and certain staff 7 members are impeding his access to the court. 8 First, at this juncture of the case, the Court cannot determine that Plaintiff is likely to succeed 9 on the merits of the case as he has yet to state a cognizable claim for relief. Second, the United States 10 Marshal has yet to effect service on any Defendant, and Defendants have no actual notice. Therefore, 11 the Court has no personal jurisdiction over any Defendant at this time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2); 12 Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. at 350; Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 13 719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 1983). Third, even if the Court had personal jurisdiction over the individuals 14 named in the complaint, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate imminent irreparable harm necessary to 15 support a preliminary injunction. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20; Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. 16 Cottrell, 632 F.3d at 1131. Nor has Plaintiff shown that the balance of equities tips in his favor or that 17 an injunction is in the public interest. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not alleged that he is at risk of 18 missing any particular deadline in this action or that he is currently attempting to draft or research a 19 specific motion to be filed in this action. Should Plaintiff need additional time to meet a deadline, he 20 may file a motion asking the Court to extend the applicable deadline at that time. Accordingly, 21 Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction must be denied. 22 III. 23 ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION 24 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly 25 assign a District Judge to this action. 26 Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction 27 (ECF No. 8), be DENIED. 28 /// 1 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 2 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 3 || days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objectiot 4 || with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 5 || Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 6 || result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson 7 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th C 8 || 1991)). 9 10 |} IT IS SO ORDERED. A (Se _ 11 |! Dated: _ September 24, 2021 OF 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28