(PC) Duncan v. California Healthcare Receivership Corp. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DIONTAE JOHAN DUNCAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-01288-AWI-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 13 v. RESTRAINING ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE (Doc. 42) RECEIVERSHIP CORP., et al., 15 14-DAY DEADLINE Defendants. 16 17 18 On November 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed a “Motion Requesting Temporary Restraining Order, 19 T.R.O. [for] New Arosen [sic] Extraordinary ‘Continuing’ Injuries Circumstances.” (Doc. 42.) 20 The undersigned hereby recommends Plaintiff’s motion be denied. 21 I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his original complaint on September 10, 2020. (Doc. 23 1.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants denied him adequate medical care for his mental-health 24 condition, subjected him to retaliation, and denied him access to this Court. (See id.) That same 25 date, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Order to Show Cause for Tempor[ar]y Restrain[in]g 26 Order.” (Doc. 3.) 27 On October 14, 2020, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations to deny 28 Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. 15.) Despite Plaintiff’s objections to the 1 recommendations (Doc. 17), District Judge Anthony W. Ishii issued an Order Adopting Findings 2 and Recommendations and Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on 3 December 3, 2020. (Doc. 24.) 4 On November 16, 2020, during the period between the issuance of the October 2020 5 Findings and Recommendations and the District Judge’s adoption thereof, Plaintiff filed a 6 document titled “Motion to Compel the Court to leave T.R.O: For New Arising Extraordinary 7 Circumstances.” (Doc. 21.) On November 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion for 8 TRO: New Arising Extraordinary Circumstances.” (Doc. 22.) On June 8, 2021, the undersigned 9 issued Findings and Recommendations to Deny Plaintiff’s Motions for Temporary Restraining 10 Orders. (Doc. 26.) Plaintiff filed objections on June 28, 2021. (Doc. 29.) On June 30, 2021, 11 District Judge Ishii issued an Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations and Denying 12 Plaintiff’s Second and Third Motions for Temporary Restraining Orders. (Doc. 33.) 13 During the period between the issuance of the June 2021 Findings and Recommendations 14 and the District Judge’s adoption thereof, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion for T.R.O for 15 New Injury Arosed [sic] Request for T.R.O. Investigate New Injury Now.” (Doc. 28.) On June 16 28, 2021, Plaintiff filed another document titled “Motion for Compel TRO, for ‘New,’ Has 17 Arisen: New Injury, Requiring Restraining Order.” (Doc. 30.) 18 On November 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for temporary restraining order. 19 (Doc. 42.) On December 3, 2021, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations to deny 20 Plaintiff’s Motions for Temporary Restraining Orders as Moot. (Doc. 43.) Plaintiff filed 21 objections on December 16, 2021. (Doc. 44.) On December 20, 2021, District Judge Ishii issued 22 an Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations and Denying Plaintiff’s Fourth and Fifth 23 Motions for Temporary Restraining Order. (Doc. 45.) 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” 1 Winter 3 v.Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 4 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 5 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 6 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20. 7 In addition, a “federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction 8 over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the 9 rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). 10 “[A]n injunction must be narrowly tailored ‘to affect only those persons over which it has power,’ 11 . . . and to remedy only the specific harms shown by the plaintiffs, rather than ‘to enjoin all 12 possible breaches of the law.’” Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) 13 (quoting Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727, 728 n.1). 14 In his sixth motion for temporary restraining order, Plaintiff alleges that prison officials 15 are interfering with his heart and mental health treatment, have confiscated his property, retaliated 16 against him for filing the instant action by filing improper rules violations reports, and interfered 17 with his mail. (Doc. 42 at 1-6.) He seeks an order directing those officials to stop the stated 18 conduct, “to be provided” his property and “for due process in getting my credit back, and to stop 19 inciting and invoking dehumanizational agenda and motivated by evil.” (Id. at 6.) 20 A. The Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction 21 In the first amended complaint,2 the named defendants include the California Healthcare 22 Receivership Corp. and numerous California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 23 (“CDCR”) employees3 at Kern Valley State Prison. (See Doc. 41.) In his most recent motion for 24 1 “The standard for a [temporary restraining order] is the same as for a preliminary injunction.” Rovio 25 Entm’t Ltd. v. Royal Plush Toys, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1092 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). 26 27 2 On March 15, 2022, Plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint within 30 days. (See Doc. 46.) 28 1 temporary restraining order, however, Plaintiff seeks an order of this Court directed to CDCR 2 employees at another institution, the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“SATF”). 3 (See Doc. 42 at 3 [“Please grant a T.R.O against these officers” wherein Plaintiff listed at least 10 4 SATF employees], 6 [“these officers”].) 5 Plaintiff has been previously advised that this Court does not have personal jurisdiction 6 over entities or individuals not named in Plaintiff’s complaint. (See, e.g., Doc. 26 at 2.) Here, the 7 operative complaint concerns only CDCR employees at Kern Valley State Prison; it does not 8 name any CDCR employees at SATF. As such, this Court lacks personal jurisdiction as to the 9 SATF employees. Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d at 727; Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d at 10 1117. Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to, and the Court may not issue, a temporary restraining 11 order directed to individuals at SATF. 12 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 13 For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for 14 temporary restraining order (Doc. 42) be DENIED. These Findings and Recommendations will 15 be submitted to the district judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 16 14 days of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 17 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 18 Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 19 waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 20 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: April 8, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 Psychologist Rubbish, LCSW Taylor, Psychologist W. Gerderal (or Gerdano), Psychologist Jane Doe #1, 28 and Psychologist Jane Doe #2. (Doc. 41 at 1-2, 4.)