(PC) Perez v. Lorman ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LISA MARIE BELYEW, No. 2:17-cv-00723-DJC-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 LARRY LORMAN, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff has filed a request for a restraining order against the “California 18 Department of Corrections Medical” based on their refusal to permit Plaintiff to access 19 her legal documents as she has refused to take a COVID-19 test.1 (ECF No. 112.) 20 To prevail on such a request, the moving party must show that “[s]he is likely to 21 succeed on the merits, that [s]he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 22 preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is 23 in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 24 Under Winter, the proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) she is likely to 25 succeed on the merits; (2) she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an 26 1 As the motion does not seek injunctive relief against Defendant and is not “directed at Defendant,” 27 Defendant has not elected to not address the substance of Plaintiff’s request. (ECF No. 119.) Defendant does object to any delay of trial on these grounds as Plaintiff has not established sufficient 28 basis for a delay. (Id. at 1–2.) 1 injunction; (3) the balance of hardships tips in her favor, and (4) an injunction is in the 2 public interest. See Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) 3 (citing Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). However, injunctive relief against individuals who are 4 not parties to an action is strongly disfavored. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine 5 Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969) (“It is elementary that one is not bound by a 6 judgment ... resulting from litigation in which he is not designated as a party....”). 7 Plaintiff’s motion is a request for injunctive relief against individuals who are not 8 parties to this action. (ECF No. 112.) As such, injunctive relief is strongly disfavored. 9 See Zenith Radio Corp, 395 U.S. at 110. Further, Plaintiff requests relief unrelated to 10 the issues underlying this case. As the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiff is not 11 based on claims asserted in the complaint, the court does not have authority to grant 12 the requested injunctive relief. Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Medical 13 Center, 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015) (“When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief 14 based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have authority to issue 15 an injunction.”). 16 The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) does permit the Court to issue writs 17 “necessary or appropriate in aid of their jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and 18 principles of law.” However, the All Writs Act is meant to aid the court in the exercise 19 and preservation of its jurisdiction. Plum Creek Lumber Co. v. Hutton, 608 F.2d 1283, 20 1289 (9th Cir. 1979). Nothing in Plaintiff’s motion indicates that injunctive relief is 21 necessary for the court to exercise or preserve its jurisdiction. 22 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Restraining order (ECF No. 112) is denied. 23 Plaintiff has also requested that the Court issue an order directing the California 24 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to “print out necessary jury 25 instructions and any and all documents necessary to prepare for trial.” (ECF No. 122.) 26 Plaintiff claims that CDCR refuses to give her access to these documents and argues 27 that this is a violation of her due process rights. (Id.) 28 //// 1 This request appears to be an extension of Plaintiff's motion for a restraining 2 | order as discussed above. To the extent Plaintiff's request is made on the same basis 3 | as that prior motion (see ECF No. 112), Plaintiff's request is denied. If Plaintiff's 4 | request is made based on different facts, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient facts on 5 || which the Court could determine such an order is necessary and legally appropriate. 6 In accordance with the above and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY 7 | ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Restraining Order (ECF No. 112) is DENIED; and 9 2. Plaintiff's Request for Jury Instructions (ECF No. 122) is DENIED. 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | Dated: _ September 26, 2023 Bek | Cbabeatin.. Hon. Daniel labretta 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28