United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A
DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION BE DENIED [ECF NO. 1]
Jesus Pacheco is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
before the Court is Plaintiff's request for temporary
restraining order and motion for a preliminary injunction,
filed June 3, 2019.
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).
alleges that by merging the Sensitive Needs prisoners with
the General Population prisoners at the institution he is
confined is a ‘failure of prison officials to protect
inmates from attacks by other inmates' and from
‘dangerous conditions' which is a clear violation
of the Eighth Amendment.” (Mot. at 2, ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiff contends a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction are necessary to prevent irreparable
injury. Plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction should be denied.
initial matter, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact
that CDCR's Inmate Locator system located at
http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov. reflects that
Plaintiff is now housed at Shafter Community Correctional
Facility. Therefore, since Plaintiff is no longer
housed at Avenal State Prison, and there is no evidence
demonstrating that Plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of
returning to Avenal State Prison, Plaintiff's request for
injunctive relief is moot in light of his transfer.
Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991)
(per curiam); see also Andrews v.
Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 n.5 (9th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a specific threat of harm to
him. Plaintiff declares that he a general population inmate
and does not want to put himself in a situation where he may
have to defend himself. Plaintiff further declares that on
January 7, 2019 and March 25, 2019, he received a rules
violation report because he refused to be assigned to a
merged yard, which implies that Plaintiff has not been housed
in the yards subject to the merger. Plaintiff also submits
the declaration of Kim McGill, Organizer of the Youth Justice
Coalition, who declares that the merging of the sensitive
needs yards and general population will (1) increase
“incidents of violence and conflict”; (2)
“[j]eopardizes the milestones and growth people have
worked so diligently to obtain”; (3) [w]ill lead to
longer sentences and increased incarceration costs, thus
contributing to overcrowding that a federal law suit, AB 109
realignment and other changes in law and policies were
intended to address”; and (4) “[u]ndermines
efforts made through changes in state law to reduce
overcrowding, increase fairness in sentencing, and reduce
violence through greater access to rehabilitative programming
and increased hope for release….” (Compl. at
23.) However, Plaintiff fails to present specific factual
details to demonstrate that there is a particular threat to
him by the merger. Moreover, Plaintiff's conclusory
allegations in the complaint relating to violent incidents in
the past do not demonstrate that there is a substantial risk
of harm to Plaintiff or that prison officials are being
deliberately indifferent to his safety. Therefore, Plaintiffs
motion for injunctive relief should be denied.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign
a District Judge to this action.
for the reasons explained above, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED
that Plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order and
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