Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Allen v. Rimbach

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 3, 2019

KEVIN ALLEN, Plaintiff,
v.
S. RIMBACH, et.al., Defendants.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED [ECF NO. 30]

         Plaintiff Kevin Allen is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

         Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for a court order to direct officer Meyer to stop retaliating against him for filing the instant action, filed July 1, 2019. The Court construes Plaintiff's motion as a request for a preliminary injunction.

         I.

         DISCUSSION

         The purpose of a temporary restraining order or 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. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction [or temporary restraining order] 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, 20 (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). A party seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction simply cannot prevail when that motion is unsupported by evidence.

         Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 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. Id. Requests 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 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.” A federal 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 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).

         The Court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order requested by Plaintiff. The pendency of this case does not provide Plaintiff with standing to seek relief directed at remedying his current conditions of confinement, which are occurring at a different prison and which involve different prison employees. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (2010). As the Ninth Circuit has explained, there must be a relation between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint. Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). Here, Plaintiffs request for an injunction relates to completely different conduct against a different individual than that presented in the operative complaint which involves alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act by Defendant Christian Pfeiffer. Thus, the two claims are not sufficiently related such that the Court has jurisdiction to grant the relief requested, and officer Meyer is not a party to this action. Plaintiffs inability to meet the “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing” with respect to the relief he seeks is fatal to his motion. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04 (1998) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 560-61).

         Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction be DENIED.

         This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.