United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATINGS RECOMMENDING DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (ECF NOS. 13,
16) OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
Saladdin Mousa (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner,
is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court are Plaintiff's motions for
injunctive relief filed November 18, 2019 and December 12,
September 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed this action seeking
dismissal of an immigration detainer that is currently in
place pending his release from prison. (ECF No. 1.) On
October 3, 2019, findings and recommendations issued
recommending dismissing this action as duplicative of an
action filed in the Northern District of California. (ECF No.
6.) Plaintiff filed objections on October 28, 2019, on the
ground that the action filed in the Northern District has
been transferred to the Eastern District of California and
converted to a habeas petition. (ECF No. 9.)
on Plaintiff's objection, the findings and
recommendations was vacated on November 6, 2019. (ECF No.
complaint was screened and on November 15, 2019, an order
issued finding that Plaintiff had failed to state a
cognizable claim and he was granted leave to file an amended
complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 12.) On November 18,
2019, Plaintiff filed a letter seeking to have the
immigration detainer lifted or an evidentiary hearing to
prevent him from being deported. (ECF No. 13.) On November
21, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice that was stricken from the
record as it was unsigned. (ECF Nos. 14, 15.) On December 12,
2019, Plaintiff refiled the letter seeking to have the
immigration hold lifted or an evidentiary hearing to prevent
him from being deported. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff has not yet
filed an amended complaint.
jurisdiction of the federal courts is limited to those cases
that are authorized by the Constitution or statute.
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.
375, 377 (1994); Home Depot U.S. A., Inc. v.
Jackson, 139 S.Ct. 1743, 1746 reh'g denied, 140
S.Ct. 17 (2019). Procedurally, a federal district court may
issue 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 serve must appear to defend.”).
Furthermore, the Court's jurisdiction is limited to the
parties in the particular action and to the viable legal
claims upon which an action is proceeding. Summers v.
Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491-93 (2009);
Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never
awarded as of right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted).
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction 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, 555 U.S. at 20 (citations
omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear
showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.
Id. at 22 (citation omitted). “Under
Winter, plaintiffs must establish that irreparable
harm is likely, not just possible, in order to obtain a
preliminary injunction.” Alliance for the Wild
Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir.
Plaintiff has the same letter on November 18, 2019 and
December 12, 2019 seeking injunctive relief. The letter seeks
to lift a pending immigration detainer or for the Court to
grant an evidentiary hearing to determine the merits of his
claim that he is exempt from deportation. Plaintiff has
failed to make a sufficient showing to warrant a preliminary
Plaintiff filed these requests while there is no operative
complaint in the action. Plaintiff's complaint was
screened and was found not to state a cognizable claim; and
no defendant has been served with process in this action.
Until one or more of the defendants have been served with
process, this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them,
and may not grant ...