Barajas Centeno v. City of Carlsbad ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JOSE BARAJAS CENTENO, Case No.: 3:19-cv-2098-L-DEB 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 12 CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al., FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 13 Defendants. ORDER (ECF 182) 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order. 16 (ECF 182). 17 The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo until the 18 merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 19 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A plaintiff “must establish that [they are] likely to succeed on the 20 merits, that [they are] likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 21 relief, that the balance of equities tips in [their] favor, and that an injunction is in the 22 public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 23 (2008). 24 Plaintiff filed the motion on behalf of himself and a non-party, Jean Wortham.1 25 The motion concerns allegations that Carlsbad police officers engaged in unlawful 26 27 1 Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint him as Jean Wortham’s guardian ad litem under 28 1 |}conduct sometime in 2021 and that Carlsbad’s Police Department violated the Americans 2 || with Disabilities Act because there were no employees fluent in Spanish to assist non- 3 || English speakers in recovering personal property confiscated during police incidents. 4 The relief sought is unrelated to the claims in this action and involves non-parties. > For these reasons, the Court finds it lacks jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; see, e.g., De 6 Beers Consol. Mines, Ltd. v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945) (“A preliminary injunction is always appropriate to grant intermediate relief of the same character as that 8 which may be granted finally. The injunction in question is not of this character. It is not an injunction in the cause, and it deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the 10 suit.”); Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties 12 and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights 13 of persons not before the court.”); Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., M4 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015) (“A court’s equitable power lies only over the merits of 15 the case or controversy before it. When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims 16 not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.”) M7 The motion is therefore DENIED.” IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: January 24, 2022 20 H . James Lorenz, 21 United States District Judge 23 request. Jean Wortham is not a party to this case. The Court therefore DENIES the petition. 25 Regardless, Plaintiff also fails to show he is likely to suffer irreparable harm. The first 26 alleged police incident occurred on July 16, 2021, and the last incident occurred on December 16, 2021. Yet, he did not seek relief until now. See Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. 27 || Chronicle Pub. Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1377 (9th Cir. 1985) (“plaintiff's long delay before 28 seeking a preliminary injunction implies a lack of urgency and irreparable harm.)