Bradford v. Bracamonte ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, Case No.: 3:20-cv-0213-WQH-WVG CDCR #H-16258, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, 13 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION v. 14 (ECF No. 18) 15 P. BRACAMONTE, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Raymond Alford Bradford (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley 20 State Prison (“SVSP”) in Soledad, California, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 21 (“IFP”) in this civil rights action. (See generally ECF No. 20, at 10-11 (granting Plaintiff’s 22 Motion to Proceed IFP and dismissing his initial Complaint for failure to state a claim with 23 leave to amend).) Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction which, 24 broadly speaking, seeks restoration of good-time and other credits Plaintiff lost as a result 25 of a disciplinary citation he received for allegedly stabbing another inmate and a 26 correctional officer. (See ECF No. 18 at 2 (seeking “an order to show cause” why 27 extraordinary credits and good-time credits should not be restored).) 28 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” 1 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). 2 Procedurally, a federal district court may issue emergency injunctive relief only if it has 3 personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject-matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. See 4 Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that 5 one “becomes a party officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon 6 service of a summons or other authority-asserting measure stating the time within which 7 the party served must appear and defend.”). The court may not attempt to determine the 8 rights of persons not before it. See, e.g., Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 9 1983), as amended (June 16, 1983). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2) an 10 injunction binds only “the parties” to the action, their “officers, agents, servants, 11 employees, and attorneys,” and “other persons who are in active concert or participation . 12 . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(A)-(C). 13 Substantively, “‘[a] plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he 14 is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence 15 of preliminary relief, that the balance of the equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction 16 is in the public interest.’” Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863, 876 (2015) (quoting Winter, 555 17 U.S. at 20). “The first factor under Winter is the most important—likely success on the 18 merits.” Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). 19 Additionally, “[u]nder Winter, plaintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not 20 just possible, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. 21 Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). 22 On December 4, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP and 23 dismissed his initial Complaint for failure to state a claim with leave to amend. (ECF No. 24 20, at 10-11). As a result, Defendants have not yet been served, nor will they be served 25 unless the Court orders that Plaintiff’s forthcoming First Amended Complaint survives 26 screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). See 28 U.S.C. § 27 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). Because Defendants have not been served, the Court does 28 not have personal jurisdiction over them, and will not attempt to determine their rights. See 1 || Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine 2 || Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969) (“[OJne is not bound by a judgment in personam 3 ||resulting from litigation .. . to which he has not been made a party by service of process.” 4 || (citation omitted)). 5 Similarly, because the Court found in its December 4, 2020, Order that Plaintiff’s 6 ||Complaint failed to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief may be granted, and dismissed 7 || his Complaint, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits for 8 || purposes of preliminary injunctive relief. See Thomas v. Chu, No. 3:20-cv-00245-GPC- 9 || BGS, 2020 WL 5408944, at *10 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2020) (noting that, having dismissed 10 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), the plaintiff had 11 ““necessarily failed to show, for purposes of justifying preliminary injunctive relief, any 12 likelihood of success on the merits of his claims” (collecting cases)). Even if □□□□□□□□□□□ 13 ||Complaint had not been dismissed, however, “[i]t has been clear for over thirty years that 14 ||a state prisoner seeking injunctive relief against the denial or revocation of good-time 15 || credits must proceed in habeas corpus, and not under § 1983.” Nonnette v. Small, 316 F.3d 16 875 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973)). For this 17 || additional reason, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. 18 “Because it is a threshold inquiry, when ‘a plaintiff has failed to show the likelihood 19 || of success on the merits, [courts] need not consider the remaining three [ Winter elements].” 20 || Garcia, 786 F.3d at 740 (quoting Ass’n des Eleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Quebec v. 21 || Harris, 729 F.3d 937, 944 (9th Cir. 2013)). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for 22 || Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. 23 ISSO ORDERED. 24 25 || Dated: December 22, 2020 BE: te Z. A a 26 Hon, William Q. Hayes 17 United States District Court 28 3