United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION (DOC. 99, 101, 105)
TED MOSKOWITZ, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Williams, Plaintiff, is a state inmate who currently resides
at the California State Prison - Sacramento
(“CSP”) located in Represa, California. When
Plaintiff initially filed this action on January 12, 2012,
she was incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional
Facility (“RJD”) but she was subsequently
transferred to CSP in April of 2012. Plaintiff has been
housed at CSP since April of 2012.
August 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “Notice and Motion
for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief.” (Doc. No. 74.)
Defendants filed an Opposition to this Motion. (Doc. No. 75.)
The Court denied Plaintiff's Motion without prejudice and
Plaintiff has since filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. Nos. 76, 82.) Currently before
the Court are two “Motions for Injunctive and
Declaratory Relief” and a “Motion for Injunctive
and Declaratory Relief and Physical Access to the Law Library
and Court.” (Doc. Nos. 99, 101, 105.) Defendants have
filed two Oppositions. (Doc. Nos. 103, 106.)
Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunction
stated in the Court's September 7, 2017 Order,
procedurally, 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). Pursuant to
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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d)(2)(A)-(C).
first Motion filed by Plaintiff on October 17, 2017 (Doc. No.
99) contains the same allegations and the same request for
injunctive relief brought in the previous preliminary
injunction motion which was denied by this Court. That is the
matter that is currently on appeal before the Ninth Circuit.
The Court is divested of jurisdiction to alter, amend or
modify the September 7, 2017 Order due to the filing of the
notice of appeal. See Pope v. Sav. Bank of Puget
Sound, 850 F.2d 1345m 1347 (9th Cir. 1988). Thus, the
Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for all the reasons set
forth in the Court's September 7, 2017 Order.
second Motion filed by Plaintiff on October 19, 2017 (Doc.
No. 101), she claims that she has been denied access to the
CSP law library in violation of her right to access to the
courts. (Doc. No. 101 at 2.) Plaintiff has
attached as exhibits a “Priority Library User (PLU)
Request and Declaration” form and the case scheduling
order issued by Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks on June 22,
2017. (Id. at 7-15.) Defendants have filed an
Opposition to this Motion. (Doc. No. 103.)
the Court has no personal jurisdiction over prison officials
at CSP as they are not parties to this action and therefore,
cannot grant the injunctive relief requested. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1), (d)(2); Murphy Bros.,
Inc., 526 U.S. at 350; Zepeda, 753 F.2d at
as the Defendants correctly note, Plaintiff's own
exhibits indicate that she requested library access in
October 3, 2017 indicating that she had a deadline of
December 11, 2017 to perform “discovery.” (Doc.
No. 101 at 7.) However, the scheduling order, which Plaintiff
has also attached to her Motion, clearly states that
discovery was to have been completed by August 7,
2017. (Id. at 9.) This is two months before
Plaintiff sought library access. The only scheduled date in
December is a deadline for filing pre-trial motions.
(Id. at 11.) Moreover, Plaintiff was denied access,
at this time, for the reason that the deadline she provided
was “too far in the future.” (Id. at 7.)
There is nothing in the record that would indicate that
Plaintiff would not be permitted access at a later date. For
all these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for
"Physical Access to the Law Library" without
third Motion for injunctive relief seeks an order directing
"the California Department of Justice (DOJ) to provide
the Plaintiff with her complaint challenging the (DOJ) to
correct the Plaintiffs criminal history records." (Doc.
No. 105 at 1-2.) In addition, Plaintiff seeks an order to
"provide the Plaintiff with her criminal history
records/reports, and the Plaintiffs California Law
Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS)."
(Id. at 2.) Finally, Plaintiff seeks an order
requiring Defendants to provide her with the "Plaintiffs
appeal log #RJD-B-11-00800" which she claims
"Defendants refused to return to the Plaintiff for trial
purposes and evidence." (Id.)
Court has previously informed Plaintiff that it does not have
personal jurisdiction over the California Department of
Justice in this matter and thus, cannot grant her request for
injunctive relief. (See Doc. No. 76
at 3.) A district court has no authority to grant relief in
the form of a temporary restraining order or permanent
injunction where it has no jurisdiction over the parties.
Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 584
(1999) ("Personal jurisdiction, too, is an essential
element of the jurisdiction of a district... court, without
which the court is powerless to proceed to an
adjudication.") (citation and internal quotation
request for a copy of her administrative appeal is DENIED as
moot as Defendants have attached a copy of the appeal to
their Opposition. (Doc. No. 106 at 5-6.)