- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID WAYNE WILSON, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-00278-DAD-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 13 v. ) RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE DENIED 14 GABINO MERCADO, et al., ) ) (ECF Nos. 3, 4) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Plaintiff David Wayne Wilson is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed March 8, 20 2022. 21 I. 22 LEGAL STANDARD 23 Procedurally, a federal district court may issue emergency injunctive relief only if it has 24 personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. See Murphy 25 Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that one “becomes a 26 party officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of summons or other 27 authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the party serve must appear to defend.). 28 Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in 1 general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 2 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court's jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the 3 viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 4 599 F.3d at 969. 5 A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary measure of relief that a federal court may 6 impose without notice to the adverse party if, in an affidavit or verified complaint, the moving party 7 “clearly show[s] that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant 8 before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). 9 The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is essentially the same as that for issuing 10 a preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th 11 Cir. 2001) (analysis for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions is “substantially 12 identical”). 13 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. 14 Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 15 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 16 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 17 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction may 18 only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted). 19 “Under Winter, plaintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in order to 20 obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th 21 Cir. 2011). 22 Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison 23 Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, 24 extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive 25 means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” Section 3626(a)(2) also places 26 significant limits upon a court's power to grant preliminary injunctive relief to inmates. “Section 27 3626(a) therefore operates simultaneously to restrict the equity jurisdiction of federal courts and to 28 protect the bargaining power of prison administrators – no longer may courts grant or approve relief 1 that binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.” Gilmore v. People of 2 the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2000). 3 II. 4 DISCUSSION 5 In his motion, Plaintiff requests a court order to direct that officers reduce the lighting from 6 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. 7 As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s case is in the preliminary screening stage, and the United States 8 Marshal has yet to effect service on any Defendant, and Defendants have no actual notice. Therefore, 9 the Court has no personal jurisdiction over any Defendant at this time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2); 10 Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999); Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 11 753 F.2d 719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 1983). In addition, the Court cannot determine whether there is any 12 likelihood of success on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate 13 that he will suffer irreparable harm should an injunction not be issued. While Plaintiff sates that the 14 lighting conditions have caused his glaucoma to worsen, difficulty sleeping, and physical and 15 psychological harm, he fails to submit any evidence in support of these allegations. Accordingly, 16 Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied. 17 III. 18 RECOMMENDATION 19 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a 20 preliminary injunction (ECF Nos. 3, 4), be DENIED. 21 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 22 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days 23 after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with 24 the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 25 Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 || result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) 2 || (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. ot fe 5 |lDated: _ April 22, 2022 OF 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Document Info
Docket Number: 1:22-cv-00278
Filed Date: 4/25/2022
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/20/2024