United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff
is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. On November
25, 2019, the undersigned granted plaintiff an extension of
time in which to file an amended complaint because he stated
he had been without his property since he arrived at Mule
Creek State Prison (“MCSP”) on August 23, 2019.
The undersigned requested that the litigation coordinator at
MCSP assist plaintiff in obtaining access to his legal
materials so that plaintiff can comply with the court's
deadline. The order was served on the litigation coordinator
as well as on Monica Anderson, Supervising Deputy Attorney
General.
On
December 5, 2019, plaintiff signed a document styled,
“Petition for TRO Injunctive Relief.” (ECF No.
12.) Plaintiff claims that it has been two weeks since the
court's order, and the litigation coordinator and Monica
Anderson have not contacted plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a 22
form to the litigation coordinator, and wrote a letter to
Monica Anderson and the litigation coordinator. Plaintiff
then filed an emergency administrative appeal with a copy of
the court's order, but the appeals coordinator denied the
appeal and removed the court order. (ECF No. 12.)
For the
reasons set forth below, the undersigned finds that
plaintiff's filing is too vague and incomplete to support
a claim for injunctive relief, and therefore dismisses the
motion without prejudice to renewal upon a proper showing.
A.
Legal Standards
The
party requesting preliminary injunctive relief must show 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, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Stormans, Inc. v.
Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Winter). The Ninth Circuit has held that, even if
the moving party cannot show a likelihood of success on the
merits, injunctive relief may issue if “serious
questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships that
tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a
preliminary injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows
that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the
injunction is in the public interest.” Alliance for
the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th
Cir. 2011) (internal quotation omitted). Under either
formulation of the principles, preliminary injunctive relief
should be denied if the probability of success on the merits
is low. See Johnson v. California State Bd. of
Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995)
(“‘[E]ven if the balance of hardships tips
decidedly in favor of the moving party, it must be shown as
an irreducible minimum that there is a fair chance of success
on the merits.'” (quoting Martin v. Int'l
Olympic Comm., 740 F.2d 670, 675 (9th Cir. 1984)).
“A
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never
awarded as of right.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 24
(citation omitted).
In
addition, “a court has no power to adjudicate a
personal claim or obligation unless it has jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant.” Zenith Radio Corp. v.
Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969);
SEC v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2007).
Similarly, the pendency of this action does not give the
Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general or over
plaintiff's litigation issues. Summers v. Earth
Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009);
Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th
Cir. 2010). This Court's jurisdiction is limited to the
parties in this action and to the cognizable legal claims
upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555
U.S. at 492-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.
B.
Discussion
In the
instant letter, plaintiff failed to address the elements
required under Winter. Plaintiff's original
complaint was dismissed on October 25, 2019, because he
raised multiple unrelated claims against multiple defendants.
Thus, there is no operative pleading on file to support a
claim for injunctive relief at this time, and the court is
unable to determine whether plaintiff would be likely to
succeed on the merits of any claim. Indeed, it is unclear
which claim or claims plaintiff intends to pursue in this
action; therefore, the undersigned is unable to discern
whether such claim is of an urgent nature. Plaintiff's
request is insufficient, procedurally, to support a request
for injunctive relief. In addition, the record is
insufficient to demonstrate an order is required under other
legal authorities.
Moreover,
plaintiff's request is premature. Although he claims he
heard nothing from the litigation coordinator in two weeks,
in fact, he waited only ten days before signing the instant
request, and there was a holiday in the ten-day period.
Finally,
the undersigned has reviewed plaintiff's original filing
and notes that plaintiff appended a copy of a document
styled, “Second Amended Complaint” addressed to
the Amador County Superior Court in which he raised many of
the same claims he raised in the original complaint filed in
this action. That document was signed on October 8, 2019, and
suggests plaintiff may not need his property in order to
draft an amended complaint in this action. Plaintiff is
reminded that a complaint requires only the facts surrounding
the particular claim; he is not required to cite legal
authorities. That plaintiff was able to articulate his
various claims in the original complaint also suggests he may
not need his property to prepare and file an amended
complaint that makes clear which claim or claims he intends
to pursue against which defendant or defendants in this
action. Importantly, plaintiff is cautioned that he may not
pursue the same legal claims in different court cases or
different courts at the same time.
In an
effort to assist plaintiff in filing an amended complaint,
the Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a copy of his initial
pleading (ECF No. 1), as well as the form for filing a civil
rights complaint by a prisoner. Plaintiffs instant request is
denied without prejudice to ...