UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 11, 2011
ROBERT E. COLEMAN,
CDCR, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
DOCS. 30, 31, 37
Plaintiff Robert E. Coleman ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunction, filed September 22, 2010, September 29, 2010, and December 6, 2010. Docs. 30, 31, 37.
I. September 22, 2010 Motion
"A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (citations omitted). The purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo or to prevent irreparable injury pending the resolution of the underlying claim. Sierra On-line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S. Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102. Thus, "[a] federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court." Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985).
Plaintiff moves for an injunction against T. Norton, S. Rousseau, and R. Chavez for alleged retaliatory conduct in assessing Plaintiff an indeterminate SHU term. Doc. 30. Plaintiff seeks an injunction preventing their alleged retaliatory conduct. However, Norton, Rousseau, and Chavez are not parties to this action. Thus, the Court has no jurisdiction to determine the rights of persons not before it. Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, filed September 22, 2010, is DENIED.
II. September 29, 2010 Motion
Plaintiff moves for an injunction against sergeant Tumacder and correctional officer Medina for alleged retaliatory actions taken against Plaintiff by issuing Plaintiff a Rules Violation Report ("RVR") for refusing to accept assigned housing. Doc. 31. Tumacder and Medina are not parties to this action. As stated previously, the Court has no jurisdiction to determine the rights of persons not before it. Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, filed September 29, 2010, is DENIED.
III. December 6, 2010 Motion
Plaintiff moves for an injunction against Defendant Diaz and correctional officer Burnizki for punishing Plaintiff for refusing a cell mate. Plaintiff contends that he did not refuse a cell mate, but merely refused to sign a compatibility form. Plaintiff contends that his eligibility for parole consideration will be hindered because he had received a ("RVR"). Plaintiff seeks the expungement of the RVR and prohibition of future retaliatory actions.
As to Burnizki, the Court has no jurisdiction. See Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727. Regarding Defendant Diaz, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate irreparable harm regarding the RVR that would merit a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should not be granted unless Plaintiff by a clear showing demonstrates that he is entitled to such relief. Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam). The Court makes no determination regarding whether the RVR would affect Plaintiff's parole eligibility, as that is not an issue before the Court. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate by a clear showing that the harm is irreparable.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, filed December 6, 2010, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.