United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR AN
EXTENSION OF TIME AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR AN
INJUNCTION (ECF NO. 10)
Corena (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff filed a complaint on July 15, 2016. (ECF No. 1).
Among other things, Plaintiff alleged that he was assaulted
by Defendants Rodriguez, Cerveza, and Doe.
December 20, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff's
complaint and found that it stated a claim for excessive
force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants
Rodriguez, Cerveza, and Doe, and a claim for retaliation in
violation of the First Amendment against Defendants Rodriguez
and Doe. (ECF No. 7). The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose
between going forward with the claims the Court found
cognizable, filing a First Amended Complaint, or standing on
the complaint subject to dismissal of claims and defendants
as laid out in the order. (Id.). On January 23,
2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 8).
The Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint, and ordered
Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint or notify the
Court that he wishes to proceed on the claims the Court found
cognizable in the December 20, 2016 screening order. (ECF No.
March 3, 2017, Plaintiff file a motion which requests an
extension of time to respond to the Court's second
screening order and an injunction (“the Motion”).
The Motion is now before the Court.
to Plaintiff, he needs additional time to respond to the
Court's screening order because he never graduated high
school (he only has his GED), English is his second language,
he is having problems with depression and PTSD, he does not
understand how to use the computers at the library, and while
he reads the law books at the library he does not understand
them. The Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff a 30 day
extension of time to respond to the second screening order.
the injunction request, Plaintiff alleges that he is not
receiving adequate medical treatment, states that every time
he reports an issue he gets assaulted, and requests an
injunction. It is unclear the exact nature of the injunction
Plaintiff is requesting, but it appears that Plaintiff wants
the Court to order that Plaintiff receive medication that
hospital personnel said that Plaintiff should
request for an injunction will be denied. “A plaintiff
seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is
likely to succeed on the merits and 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 Resources
Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations
omitted). “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary
remedy never awarded as a matter of right. In each case,
courts must balance the competing claims of injury and must
consider the effect on each party of the granting or
withholding of the requested relief. In exercising their
sound discretion, courts of equity should pay particular
regard for the public consequences in employing the
extraordinary remedy of injunction.” Id. at 24
(citations and quotations omitted). An injunction may only be
awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled
to such relief. Id. at 22.
a federal district court may issue emergency injunctive
relief only if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties
and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. See
Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526
U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that one “becomes a party
officially, and is required to take action in that capacity,
only upon service of summons or other authority-asserting
measure stating the time within which the party served must
appear to defend.”). The court may not attempt to
determine the rights of persons not before it. See, e.g.,
Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229,
234-35 (1916); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727-28
(9th Cir. 1983); see also Califano v.
Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979) (injunctive relief
must be “narrowly tailored to give only the relief to
which plaintiffs are entitled”). Under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), an injunction binds only “the
parties to the action, ” their “officers, agents,
servants, employees, and attorneys, ” and “other
persons who are in active concert or participation.”
for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C.
§ 3626 (a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act,
which requires that the Court find that the “relief
[sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary
to correct the violation of the Federal Right, and is the
least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of
the Federal Right.”
Plaintiff's request is premature. There is no operative
complaint in this case, and no defendants have been served.
Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to order an emergency
injunction. While the Court did find valid claims in
Plaintiff's initial complaint, Plaintiff chose to file a
First Amended Complaint instead of proceeding on the claims
found cognizable by the Court, and the First Amended
Complaint has been dismissed.
the claims that the Court found cognizable related only to
excessive force and retaliation. (ECF No. 7, p. 12). In fact,
the Court specifically found that Plaintiff failed to state a
claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs
when Plaintiff alleged that certain prison doctors were not
prescribing the medication that hospital personnel
prescribed. (Id. at pgs. 8-10). It appears that the
injunction request is directed at this exact issue.
Accordingly, at this time the Court cannot find that
Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Therefore,
Plaintiffs request for an injunction will be denied without
accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs request for an extension of time is GRANTED.
Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of service of this order
to comply with the Court's screening order ...