United States District Court, E.D. California
KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a prisoner in the Butte County Jail. In his civil rights
complaint, plaintiff claims that kitchen staff are poisoning
his food and food trays with snake venom. (ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiff claims he is “pissing blood and throwing up
poison, ” and despite submitting medical forms and
using the emergency button, jail staff refuses to respond.
(ECF No. 1 at 3.) The court has not screened plaintiff's
complaint because he has not yet complied with this
court's November 25, 2019 order.
December 2, 2019, plaintiff filed a request for temporary
restraining order or a preliminary injunction, again claiming
he is being poisoned with snake venom, and asking for
unidentified “emergency action to be taken asap.”
(ECF No. 7 at 1.) Plaintiff attaches documents stating he has
notified various agencies about the alleged violations,
including Internal Affairs. Plaintiff also provided a copy of
his December 21, 2018 jail grievance in which plaintiff
claimed that the State of California had bugged and chipped
plaintiff without his permission. (ECF No. 7 at 11.)
Motion for Injunctive Relief
temporary restraining order may issue upon a showing
“that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage
will result to the movant before the adverse party can be
heard in opposition.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(1)(A). The
purpose of such an order is to preserve the status quo and to
prevent irreparable harm “just so long as is necessary
to hold a hearing, and no longer.” Granny Goose
Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423,
439 (1974). In ruling on a motion for temporary restraining
order, district courts apply the same factors used to
evaluate a request for preliminary injunctive relief: whether
plaintiff “is likely to succeed on the merits, . . .
likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief, . . . the balance of equities tips in his
favor, and . . . an injunction is in the public
interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); see Stuhlbarg
Int'l. Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240
F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Because our
analysis is substantially identical for the injunction and
the TRO, we do not address the TRO separately.”).
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never
awarded as of right.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 24
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
L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge
Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church &
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. Further,
requests for prospective relief are limited by 18 U.S.C.
§ 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(“PLRA”), 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.”
the pendency of an action does not give the court
jurisdiction over prison officials in general. Summers v.
Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491-93 (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.
Rule 65(b)(1) permits issuance of a temporary restraining
order without notice to the adverse party only if:
(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint
clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or
damage will result to the movant before the adverse ...