(PC) Dalke v. King ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA JASON DALKE, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00534-AWI-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. ) RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION BE DENIED 14 KING CLARK, et al., ) ) (ECF Nos. 140, 141, 148) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Plaintiff Joshua Jason Dalke is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On December 6, 2021, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations recommending 20 that Defendants’ exhaustion-related motion for summary judgment be granted and the action be 21 dismissed, without prejudice. (ECF No. 135.) 22 On December 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed two separate motions for temporary injunction. (ECF 23 Nos. 140, 141.) 24 On February 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed another motion for a temporary injunction. Defendants 25 filed an opposition on February 22, 2022. (ECF No. 149.) 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 I. 2 DISCUSSION 3 The purpose of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction is to preserve the 4 status quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to 5 intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of 6 Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction [or 7 temporary restraining order] must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely 8 to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 9 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 10 Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 11 “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be 12 granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. 13 Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). A party 14 seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction simply cannot prevail when that motion 15 is unsupported by evidence. 16 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary 17 injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it an 18 actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge 19 Christian Coll. V. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If 20 the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in 21 question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the 22 Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, 23 extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive 24 means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 25 As a threshold matter, Plaintiff must demonstrate he has standing to seek preliminary 26 injunctive relief. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009); Mayfield v. United 27 States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). “[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability 28 constitutes the core of Article III's case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal 1 jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 2 U.S. 83, 103-04 (1998); accord Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). This 3 requires Plaintiff to “show that he is under threat of suffering an ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and 4 particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly 5 traceable to challenged conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial 6 decision will prevent or redress the injury.” Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 7 The pendency of this action, which arises out of the alleged deliberate indifference to his personal 8 safety, does not provide Plaintiff with standing to seek relief related to the processing of his inmate 9 appeals. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 10 In his December 27, 2021 motions, Plaintiff that officer Gil is subjecting him to assaults by 11 other inmates and retaliation due to this pending action. Plaintiff contends that officer Gil stated 12 loudly for inmates to hear, “Listen the guys got us officers dead bang in a lawsuit[] and we need him 13 handled.” (ECF No. 140 at 2.) 14 In his February 14, 2022 motion, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin unnamed correctional officers from 15 retaliating and harassing Plaintiff. (ECF No. 148.) Plaintiff also requests the Court enjoin a transfer to 16 the Department of State Hospitals (DSH). Plaintiff specifically contends that since 2020, 17 “Defendants’ coworkers” have been retaliating against him. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff also contends that 18 while housed at the Psychiatric Inpatient Program (PIP) at Salina Valley State Prison, two inmates 19 attacked him. (Id.) He also submits that while at California State Prison, Sacramento, unnamed prison 20 officials housed Plaintiff with another inmate who was allegedly asked “to poke [Plaintiff’s] eyes out.” 21 (Id.) Plaintiff further alleges that “the doctors” are sending him back to DSH “stating false lies.” (Id. 22 at 2.) 23 First, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on the merits of this action. 24 Indeed, Findings and Recommendations are pending which recommend that the action be dismissed, 25 without prejudice, for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies. (ECF No. 135.) Second, 26 Plaintiff has not established that he will suffer irreparable harm without a temporary injunction. 27 Plaintiff’s allegations of harassment and retaliation by Defendants’ co-workers is insufficient to 28 support injunctive relief and is nothing more than “speculative injury.” In addition, the Court lacks 1 jurisdiction to issue Plaintiff’s requested temporary injunction because it does not have jurisdiction 2 over the unnamed “co-workers” or prison officials, non-parties to the instant lawsuit. This Court only 3 has jurisdiction over Defendants Cardona, Ramos, Alcantar, Vera, and Fugate. Zepeda v. United 4 States Immigration and Naturalization Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). Furthermore, 5 granting Plaintiff injunctive relief is not in the public interest. A preliminary injunction would 6 unnecessarily interfere with prison administration and would indirectly subvert the exhaustion 7 requirement mandated by federal law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Lastly, the Court lacks jurisdiction 8 to issue an order directing prison official to stop a transfer of Plaintiff to different location based on 9 alleged retaliation because it does not involve the same case or controversy before the Court which 10 involves claims of deliberate indifferent against Defendants Cardona, Ramos, Alcantar, Vera, and 11 Fugate. Benyamini v. Manjuano, No 1:06-cv-01096-AWI-GSA (PC), 2011 WL 4963108, at *1 (E.D. 12 Cal. Oct. 18, 2011) (“This Court lacks jurisdiction to issue an order requiring prison officials to 13 transfer [plaintiff] based on retaliatory acts occurring after this action was filed, because the Court 14 does not have such a case or controversy before it in this action.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions 15 for temporary injunction should be denied. 16 II. 17 RECOMMENDATIONS 18 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions for a 19 temporary injunction (ECF Nos. 140, 141, 148) be DENIED. 20 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 21 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days 22 after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections 23 with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 || Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 2 || may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 3 || 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 4 5 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 (ee 6 ll Dated: _ February 23, 2022 LF 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28