United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED [ECF
Kevin Allen is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
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
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
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.
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).
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).
it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs motion for a
preliminary injunction be DENIED.
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