United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR AN
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION (ECF NO. 9)
Thomas Bodnar is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate
judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and
Local Rule 302. (ECF No. 6.)
before the Court is Plaintiff's motion requesting an
emergency injunction, filed April 12, 2017. (ECF No. 9.)
motion, Plaintiff states that he is due to be released from
prison on May 145, 2017 on parole, and his parole conditions
do not allow him to have a P.O. Box or access to a computer.
(ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff states that this would prevent him
from litigating his case, as he will be homeless and will
have no address for his legal mail, or access to a computer
for legal research. Plaintiff further states that he sent a
complaint to his parole officer, and the officer responded
that Plaintiff could have mail, including legal mail, sent to
the parole office, and that he could access a computer at the
parole office where his computer use would be supervised.
asserts that the accommodation he is being offered does not
afford him sufficient due process because the parole officer
would “look over my shoulder and watch how and what I
do to litigate my case against CDCR, ” and because his
access to mail may be delayed by these arrangements.
Plaintiff wishes to purchase a laptop with parental control
software that only allows administrative access to the parole
officer, and to be allowed to obtain a P.O. Box or a similar
UPS store mailbox. Plaintiff seeks for an order to be issued
against the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) Sex Offenders Unit in
Sacramento, California, and against the CDCR DAPO-SBA office
in San Bernardino, California.
purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status
quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving
party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure
the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately
determined. Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S.
390, 395 (1981). “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 Resources Defense
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). “[A] preliminary
injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that
should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear
showing, carries the burden of persuasion.”
Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997)
(quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
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 (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).
pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction
over prison officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island
Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 491-93 (2009); Mayfield v.
United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir.
2010). The Court's jurisdiction is limited to the parties
in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this
action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491-93;
Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.
has not met the requirements for the emergency injunctive
relief he seeks in this motion. Plaintiffs complaint has not
yet been screened, and the Court has not yet determined
whether he has stated any cognizable claims. No defendant has
been ordered served, and no defendant has yet made an
appearance. Plaintiffs complaint concerns claims against
certain prison medical officials and CDCR as regards
allegations of denied and delayed medical care, not any
claims related to his parole conditions. Thus, there is no
jurisdiction in this action for the specific forms of
injunctive relief Plaintiff is requesting as regards
modification of his parole conditions. Nor does the Court
find that Plaintiff has shown any irreparable harm justifying
the need for the extraordinary need requested here, as he
concedes he is being accommodated with access to legal mail
and a computer. To the extent Plaintiff may require
additional time to meet a deadline in this case, he may
request an extension of time supported by good cause prior to
the expiration of that deadline.
Plaintiffs motion requesting an emergency injunction, filed