(PC) Hammler v. Gooch ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLEN HAMMLER, Case No.: 1:19-cv-00653 JLT EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 13 v. (Doc. 131) 14 GOOCH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, the case is proceeding on Plaintiff’s 20 Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious risk of harm against Defendant 21 Salcedo and his Eighth Amendment medical indifference claims against Defendants Gooch, 22 Salcedo, and Burnes. (Docs. 14, 23, 97.) These claims stem from Defendants’ alleged inaction in 23 responding to (1) the risk a fire in the prison posed to Plaintiff’s safety and (2) his resulting 24 medical needs. (Doc. 124.) A jury trial is set to start in this case on March 19, 2024. (Id.) 25 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 131). In the motion, 26 Plaintiff alleges that he is currently housed at California State Prison, Sacramento (CSPS), but 27 was informed that he will be transferred in advance of trial to another facility. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff 28 further alleges that he will be separated from his legal files and that the legal files will be in 1 disorder upon being given back to him. (Id.) Plaintiff also states that he will not be able to 2 continue preparing for trial if transferred to another facility before the date of the trial. (Id. at 1– 3 2.) Plaintiff asks the Court to issue an injunction directed at Warden Lynch at CSPS and 4 Secretary of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Macomber to hold 5 Plaintiff at CSPS. (Id. at 1.) 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 8 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 9 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 10 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 11 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20. 12 In addition, a “federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction 13 over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the 14 rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). 15 “[A]n injunction must be narrowly tailored ‘to affect only those persons over which it has 16 power,’ . . . and to remedy only the specific harms shown by the plaintiffs, rather than ‘to enjoin 17 all possible breaches of the law.’” Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) 18 (quoting Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727, 728 n.1). 19 As an initial matter, the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the individuals 20 against whom Plaintiff seeks an injunction, i.e., Warden Lynch, the warden of CSPS, and the 21 secretary of CDCR. In this case, the Court only has personal jurisdiction over the parties, i.e., 22 Plaintiff and Defendants Gooch, Salcedo, and Burnes. In other words, the Court cannot issue an 23 order directing other entities —like the CSPC Warden or CDCR Secretary who are not named as 24 defendants in any operative complaint—to do or refrain from doing something. Summers v. Earth 25 Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727. 26 In addition, the claims in Plaintiff’s motion are unrelated to the claims at issue in this case. 27 As described above, Plaintiff’s operative claims are for Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate 28 indifference to a serious risk of harm against Defendant Salcedo and his Eighth Amendment 1 | medical indifference claims against Defendants Gooch, Salcedo, and Burnes. (Docs. 14, 23, 97.) 2 | Plaintiff’s claims in his motion, on the other hand, are access-to-court claims based on his ability 3 | to prepare for trial during and after the transfer from CSPS to a temporary holding location 4 | shortly before and during trial. (Doc. 131.) “When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on 5 | claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.” 6 | Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015). 7 | “Because the Court only has jurisdiction over the operative claims in the [c]omplaint,” which do 8 | not include the claims in Plaintiff’s motion, the Court lacks the authority to provide the injunctive 9 | relief that Plaintiff seeks. Smith v. Rios, No. 1:10-cv-1554-AWI-MJS, 2010 WL 4603959, at *2 10 | (E_D. Cal. 2010) (citations omitted). 11 Finally, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable injury if a transfer to another institution 12 | occurred. The Court set trial in this case for March 19, 2024, during the pre-trial conference on 13 | October 23, 2023, in which Plaintiff personally participated. (Doc. 127 at 28.) Therefore, 14 | Plaintiff had four months to prepare for trial. He has not demonstrated why he could not have 15 || sufficiently prepared in advance of any trial. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief is 16 | DENIED. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | Dated: _February 20, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28