(PC) Hudkins v. Clark ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIMOTHY D. HUDKINS, 1:21-cv-01473-JLT-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 13 vs. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED, 14 K. CLARK, et al., WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AS PREMATURE (ECF No. 2.) 15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 16 FOURTEEN DAYS 17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Timothy D. Hudkins (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil 20 rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on 21 October 1, 2021, together with a motion for preliminary injunctive relief.1 (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) On 22 March 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 27.) 23 24 1 This case was initially filed on October 1, 2021, by two co-plaintiffs, Timothy D. Hudkins and 25 William H.L. Brandstatt. (ECF No. 1.) On October 1, 2021, the two co-plaintiffs filed the motion for injunctive relief, which is now before the court. (ECF No. 2.) On November 1, 2021, the Court severed the two co-plaintiffs’ 26 claims and opened a new case for William H.L. Brandstatt, case number 21-cv-1600-DAD-GSA-PC. (ECF No. 8.) Each of the plaintiffs now proceeds with his separate individual case, and now the only plaintiff in this case is 27 Timothy D. Hudkins. Therefore the Court shall address the motion for injunctive relief as to only Plaintiff Timothy D. Hudkins. On March 14, 2022, William H.L. Brandstatt filed a motion for injunctive relief in his separate case, 28 which shall be addressed there. (See case number 21-cv-01600-DAD-GSA-PC, Doc. 15.) 1 II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 2 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed 3 on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that 4 the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 5 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the 6 plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). 7 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 8 preliminary injunctive relief, the court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, 9 it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 10 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of 11 Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the court does not 12 have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. 13 II. PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 14 Plaintiff requests a court order compelling officials at Corcoran State Prison (CSP), where 15 Plaintiff is incarcerated, to protect him from abuse, retaliation, physical violence, property abuse, 16 cover up of wrongdoing, obstruction of access to courts, and confiscation and destruction of legal 17 documents. 18 Analysis 19 Plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief until such time as the court finds 20 that his complaint contains cognizable claims for relief against the named defendants and the 21 named defendants have been served with the summons and complaint. At this juncture Plaintiff's 22 motion for preliminary injunctive relief is premature. The Court does not have personal 23 jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction over the defendants because defendants have not 24 received service of process. See Zepeda v. U.S. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 25 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over 26 the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the 27 rights of persons not before the court.”). The First Amended Complaint, filed on March 30, 2022, 28 remains subject to the screening provisions of § 1915A. 1 Therefore, court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s 2 motion for preliminary injunction shall be denied, with leave to re-file the motion at a later stage 3 of the proceedings. 4 Plaintiff is cautioned to any further motions for preliminary injunctive relief that are filed 5 before defendants are served with process in this case will be denied as premature. 6 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for 8 preliminary injunctive relief, filed on October 1, 2021, be DENIED without prejudice as 9 premature. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 11 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 12 (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 13 written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 14 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 15 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 16 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 17 (9th Cir. 1991)). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: April 26, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28