United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [ECF NO. 64]
Allen Hammler 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 motion for a preliminary
injunction, filed December 23, 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.”
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).
seeks a preliminary injunction seeks a court order directing
prison officials at California State Prison, Corcoran to
stop, intermittently, serving his food that does not comport
with his religious beliefs. This action is proceeding against
Defendants Gamboa, Peterson, Garza, Saucedo, Uhlik and Clark
for violation of the First Amendment, namely, failure to
provide appropriate food to accommodate his religious
beliefs. “The fact that Plaintiff has met the pleading
requirements allowing him to proceed with the complaint does
not, ipso facto, entitle him to a preliminary
injunction.” Claiborne v. Blauser, No.
2:10-cv-2427 LKK, 2011 WL 3875892, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31,
2011), report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 4765000
(E.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2011). Plaintiff has failed to
“clearly show” that he currently faces
“immediate and irreparable loss or injury” based
on the claim that he is occasionally served food that does
not comport with his religious beliefs. In addition, at the
pleading stage, the Court cannot determine that whether
Plaintiffs claim has merit, versus a determination that his
claim has been plausibly stated. Barrett v.
Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). Indeed,
Defendants have not yet filed an answer or submitted
evidence. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motions for a preliminary
injunction should 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