United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF'S
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED (ECF NO.
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
William Jones (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner
proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
October 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this action.
(ECF No. 8.) In that complaint, Plaintiff requests emergency
and immediate injunctive relief; specifically, an order
providing treatment and support groups for Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) for all veterans at
SATF. The Court construes the request as a motion for
preliminary injunctive relief.
Request for Emergency Injunctive Relief
requests that the Court issue an immediate order to have SATF
offer treatment and support groups for PTSD for all veterans
at SATF. Plaintiff asserts that his condition is worsening by
the day. Plaintiff further asserts that the longer treatment
is not made available, the more Plaintiff becomes a threat to
himself and to others, in and out of prison. Plaintiff claims
that the treatment he is receiving is insufficient, and
although his medication helps manage his symptoms, it does
“little if anything to actually help to improve [his]
disorder.” (ECF No. 8, p. 4.)
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, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (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, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (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, 117 S.Ct. 1865, 138 L.Ed.2d 162 (1997) (quotations
and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
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). The 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, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 173 L.Ed.2d 1 (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.
instance, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to
succeed on the merits of his claim. In an order issued
concurrently with these findings and recommendations, the
Court has screened Plaintiff's complaint and found that
it does not state any cognizable claims. His complaint was
dismissed with leave to amend, and therefore his action does
not proceed on any viable complaint at this time.
also has not demonstrated that he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. He
alleges that he is receiving some treatment which helps his
symptoms. Plaintiff's vague assertions that he is
becoming a threat to himself and others are too conclusory to
determine whether a risk of severe harm exists in the absence
of immediate injunctive relief.
“a court has no power to adjudicate a personal claim or
obligation unless it has jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant.” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine
Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110, 89 S.Ct. 1562 (1969);
S.E.C. v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1138-39 (9th Cir.
2007). As noted above, the Court has dismissed
Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. No defendant
has been ordered served and no defendant has yet made an
appearance. At this juncture, the Court lacks personal
jurisdiction over the defendants and it cannot issue an order
requiring them to take any action. Zenith Radio
Corp., 395 U.S. at 110; Ross, 504 F.3d at
1138-39. Nor does the Court have jurisdiction over CDCR or
SATF prison officials generally merely based on the pendency
of this action.
Conclusion and Recommendation
reasons explained above, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that
Plaintiff's request for emergency ...