(PC) Mundy v. Sacramento County Jail Medical Staff ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 STANLEY W. MUNDY, Case No. 1:22-cv-00401-ADA-SAB (PC) 11 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12 v. RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO 13 SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL ENFORCE MEDICAL DIET BE DENIED STAFF, et al., 14 (ECF No. 43) Defendants. 15 16 17 Plaintiff Stanley A. Mundy is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction directing 20 prison officials to provide him with an adequate medical diet, filed June 16, 2023. 21 I. 22 DISCUSSION 23 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 24 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 25 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 26 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 27 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction 1 may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation 2 omitted). 3 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 4 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, 5 it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); 6 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 7 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no 8 power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 9 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find 10 the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation 11 of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the 12 Federal right.” 13 Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 14 officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. 15 United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court's jurisdiction is limited to the parties 16 in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 17 U.S. at 491–93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. A federal court may issue an injunction if it has 18 personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not 19 attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States 20 Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). 21 Here, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief directing prison officials to provide him an adequate 22 medical diet. (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to show that he is 23 likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a temporary restraining order and/or 24 preliminary injunction. While, the lack of a proper medical diet, can present an imminent risk of 25 irreparable harm, this is not true in every case. Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence that 26 the risk of harm from some medical conditions is imminent and non-speculative. In addition, 27 Plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief until such time as the court finds that his defendants have been served with the summons and complaint. At this juncture, Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief is premature. Accordingly, it is recommended that both Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction be denied. ‘ I. ° RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion for a 7 preliminary injunction (ECF No. 43), be DENIED. This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen (14) 10 days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 2 Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 8 specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 15 16 | IT IS SO ORDERED. A (Se _ pated: _ June 20, 2023 OF 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28