(PC) Smith v. Allison ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FREDERICK WAYNE SMITH, No. 1:22-cv-01580-JLT-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 13 v. (Doc. 42) 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 On February 8, 2024, the instant action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was dismissed, 18 without prejudice, for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies and judgment was entered. 19 (Docs. 40, 41.) On February 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. 20 (Doc. 42.) Plaintiff contends that he needs an emergency transfer because inmates are trying to 21 kill him. (Id. at 1.) 22 A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary measure of relief that a federal court 23 may impose without notice to the adverse party if, in an affidavit or verified complaint, the 24 movant “clearly show[s] that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the 25 movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). A 26 plaintiff seeking injunctive relief “must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he 27 is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities 28 tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 1 | Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted); see also Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. vy. John D. Brush 2 | & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (Oth Cir. 2001) (stating that the analysis for temporary restraining 3 | orders and preliminary injunctions is “substantially identical”). 4 Because the instant action has been dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust the 5 | administrative remedies, Plaintiff cannot show that he has any likelihood of success sufficient to 6 | warrant a temporary restraining order. In addition, the Court does not have jurisdiction over any 7 | parties in this action because the action is closed. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 US. 8 | 574, 584 (1999) (“Personal jurisdiction, too, is an essential element of the jurisdiction of a 9 | district...court, without which the court is powerless to proceed to an adjudication.”) (citation and 10 | internal quotation omitted). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 11 1. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED. 12 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to provide this order to Litigation Coordinator at 13 | Kern Valley State Prison via fax or email, so that if there are steps that need to be taken to protect 14 | Mr. Smith, that those actions are taken. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 | Dated: _February 21, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28