UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 11, 2013
LONNIE WILLIAMS, CDCR #T-54378, PLAINTIFF,
DANIEL PARAMO; R. OLSON;
E. MARRERO, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge United States District Court
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (ECF No. 21]
Lonnie Williams, a state inmate currently incarcerated at CSP- Sacramento, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, prison officials at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility ("RJD"), violated his constitutional rights by labeling him with an "R" suffix and failing to protect him from prison gang members. (See Compl. at 3-5.) Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint on November 13, 2012. (ECF No. 14.)
On December 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed a "Motion for Ex Parte Injunctive and Declaratory Order" to which Defendants have filed a Reply. (ECF Nos. 21, 22.)
I. Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief
In his Motion, Plaintiff claims at her current place of incarceration in Sacramento she is being "poisoned daily with arsenic, toxins, biological agents, bacteria and pesticides in her food." (Pl.'s Mot. at 1.) In addition, Plaintiff claims that she is having "multiple heart attacks." (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief "ordering the Plaintiff be transferred immediately to CMF Prison for her protection and safety," as well as an order "that CDCR officials do [not] allege, document or inform anyone of the sex offense and "R" suffix placed upon the Plaintiff. (Id. at 4.)
As an initial matter, the Court finds that Plaintiff is requesting injunctive relief from parties that are not part of this litigation. The allegations in Plaintiff's Motion relate to events that occurred at her current place of confinement which is in Sacramento. The action currently before the Court relates to events that occurred while she was incarcerated at RJD. Moreover, there are no Defendants in this action that are alleged to be prison officials at California State Prison - Sacramento. Therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction to issue an order for injunctive relief sought by Plaintiff in her Motion. See Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) ("A federal court may issue an injunction 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." ).
II. Conclusion and Order
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 21) pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 65 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.