UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 9, 2011
HUBERT DYMITR HARASZEWSKI,
LISA BRANNAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorablelarryalanburns United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
By an ex parte application filed nunc pro tunc to December 2, 2011, Plaintiff Haraszewski requested injunctive relief against unnamed employees of Mule Creek State Prison because he believed they might, in the future, take his legal documents or other property. The application explained that he feared retribution following an investigation, and expressed his worry that officers would throw his documents away.
The application also notified the Court Haraszewski had been moved to administrative segregation, offering this information as an explanation in case he needed an extension of time for some purpose in the future. He does not require an extension of time at this point, however.
The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over officers of the Mule Creek State Prison, which is located in the Eastern District of California. The officers are not before the Court. See Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that a federal court may only enjoin parties over which it has personal jurisdiction, and "may not attempt to determine the rights of persons before the court").
Even if the Court had personal jurisdiction, the request for injunctive relief is unripe. Haraszewski, even by his own account, is no in any imminent danger of being deprived of any of his rights. His prediction that this might happen is insufficient to support a grant of injunctive relief. See Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009) (including among the requirements for injunctive relief that the threat of injury be "actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical").
The application is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.