ALEXANDER RODARTE, Case No.: 1:25-cv-00487-SKO Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AS MOOT v. (Doc. 14) DEPARTMENT, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR Defendants. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Doc. 14) 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge
Plaintiff Alexander Rodarte, a former county jail inmate and current state prisoner, is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Plaintiff filed his original complaint on April 18, 2025, in the Sacramento division of this Court. (Doc. 1.) The action was transferred to the Fresno division on April 28, 2025. (Doc. 4.) On October 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed a one-page document titled “Motion to Amend Complaint/Motion for Preliminary Injunction.” (Doc. 14.) On January 5, 2026, this Court issued Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint Plaintiff states he “is seeking request to amend complaint for this case.” (Doc. 14.) Although this Court “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires” (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)), granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint is unnecessary here. The Court recently screened Plaintiff’s original complaint, and determined Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Doc. 15 at 3-12.) Plaintiff was granted leave to amend his complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in the screening order. (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff was directed to file a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal within 21 days of the date of service of the order, or by January 26, 2026.1 (Id. at 13.) Because the screening order granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, his motion is moot and will be denied accordingly. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction Plaintiff states he “would also like to request a preliminary/permanate [sic] injunction.” (Doc. 14.) He contends that the Merced County Sheriff’s Office “shared the physical violence of inmates attacking Plaintiff Rodarte while he was asleep & … on cyber security infastructor [sic].” (Id.) He asks the Court to “grant this request to remove any harmful content.” (Id.) Applicable Legal Standards “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.”2 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). A federal district 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., 1 1/5/2026 [date of service of order] + 21 days = 1/26/2026.
2 “The standard for a [temporary restraining order] is the same as for a preliminary injunction.” Rovio Entm’t Ltd. v. Royal Plush Toys, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1092 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). The standards for permanent injunction and preliminary injunction are essentially the same with the exception that for a permanent injunction to issue, plaintiff must ultimately show actual success on the merits, instead of probable success on the merits. Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n. 12 (1987); see also Walsh v. City and County of Honolulu, 460 F.Supp.2d 1207, 1211 (D. Hawai'i 2006). 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 must appear to defend”). The court may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before it. See, e.g., 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). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), an injunction binds only “the parties to the action,” their “officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” and “other persons who are in active concert or participation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(A)-(C). “When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.” Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015). Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires the Court find that 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 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.” Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863, 876 (2015) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). “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. 2011). Analysis Plaintiff cannot meet the required Winter factors and is not entitled to injunctive relief. As an initial matter, the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the Merced County Sheriff’s Department because that entity has been served in this action. See Murphy Bros., 526 U.S. at 350; Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727-28. Plaintiff has also not met the first Winter factor. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (See Doc. 15 at 3-12.) In the absence of any cognizable claims, Plaintiff cannot establish he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. See also Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc., 869 F.3d 848, 856 (9th Cir. 2017) (in deciding whether a preliminary injunction should issue, the likelihood of success on the merits is the most important factor for the court to consider). Pursuant to the second Winter factor, Plaintiff must also make a showing that
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
ALEXANDER RODARTE, Case No.: 1:25-cv-00487-SKO Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AS MOOT v. (Doc. 14) DEPARTMENT, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR Defendants. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Doc. 14) 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge
Plaintiff Alexander Rodarte, a former county jail inmate and current state prisoner, is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Plaintiff filed his original complaint on April 18, 2025, in the Sacramento division of this Court. (Doc. 1.) The action was transferred to the Fresno division on April 28, 2025. (Doc. 4.) On October 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed a one-page document titled “Motion to Amend Complaint/Motion for Preliminary Injunction.” (Doc. 14.) On January 5, 2026, this Court issued Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint Plaintiff states he “is seeking request to amend complaint for this case.” (Doc. 14.) Although this Court “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires” (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)), granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint is unnecessary here. The Court recently screened Plaintiff’s original complaint, and determined Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Doc. 15 at 3-12.) Plaintiff was granted leave to amend his complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in the screening order. (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff was directed to file a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal within 21 days of the date of service of the order, or by January 26, 2026.1 (Id. at 13.) Because the screening order granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, his motion is moot and will be denied accordingly. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction Plaintiff states he “would also like to request a preliminary/permanate [sic] injunction.” (Doc. 14.) He contends that the Merced County Sheriff’s Office “shared the physical violence of inmates attacking Plaintiff Rodarte while he was asleep & … on cyber security infastructor [sic].” (Id.) He asks the Court to “grant this request to remove any harmful content.” (Id.) Applicable Legal Standards “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.”2 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). A federal district 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., 1 1/5/2026 [date of service of order] + 21 days = 1/26/2026.
2 “The standard for a [temporary restraining order] is the same as for a preliminary injunction.” Rovio Entm’t Ltd. v. Royal Plush Toys, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1092 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). The standards for permanent injunction and preliminary injunction are essentially the same with the exception that for a permanent injunction to issue, plaintiff must ultimately show actual success on the merits, instead of probable success on the merits. Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n. 12 (1987); see also Walsh v. City and County of Honolulu, 460 F.Supp.2d 1207, 1211 (D. Hawai'i 2006). 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 must appear to defend”). The court may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before it. See, e.g., 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). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), an injunction binds only “the parties to the action,” their “officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” and “other persons who are in active concert or participation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(A)-(C). “When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.” Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015). Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires the Court find that 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 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.” Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863, 876 (2015) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). “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. 2011). Analysis Plaintiff cannot meet the required Winter factors and is not entitled to injunctive relief. As an initial matter, the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the Merced County Sheriff’s Department because that entity has been served in this action. See Murphy Bros., 526 U.S. at 350; Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727-28. Plaintiff has also not met the first Winter factor. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (See Doc. 15 at 3-12.) In the absence of any cognizable claims, Plaintiff cannot establish he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. See also Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc., 869 F.3d 848, 856 (9th Cir. 2017) (in deciding whether a preliminary injunction should issue, the likelihood of success on the merits is the most important factor for the court to consider). Pursuant to the second Winter factor, Plaintiff must also make a showing that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. Glossip, 576 U.S. at 876; Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. While Plaintiff asserts his “belief” that the Merced County Sheriff’s Department “shared the physical violence of inmates attacking” him and “shared it on cyber security [infrastructure],” these beliefs are unsupported and speculative and cannot form the basis for a finding of irreparable harm. In re Excel Innovations, Inc., 502 F.3d 1086, 1098 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Speculative injury cannot be the basis for the finding of irreparable harm”); Goldie's Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court of State of Cal., 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984) (“Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury”); Witkin v. Snelling, No. 2:21-cv-2181 JAM AC P, 2022 WL 602657, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2022) (“The motion is based entirely on Plaintiff's assertions regarding past events and what he believes may happen in the future. … Any belief on Plaintiff's part that Defendants or high-level offender inmates will physically harm him, or that particular Defendants will continue to retaliate against him for filing grievances, is purely speculative and thus does not constitute irreparable harm warranting a preliminary injunction”). Lastly, the undersigned finds Plaintiff fails to establish the third and fourth Winter factors. He makes no showing that the balance of equities tips in his favor or that an injunction is in the public interest. Glossip, 576 U.S. at 876; Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Without establishing a likelihood of success on the merits or a credible showing of irreparable harm, the undersigned finds the balance of equities does not tip in Plaintiff’s favor, nor does it appear that the injunction Plaintiff seeks is in the public’s interest. Even presuming the Merced County Sheriff’s Department “shared the physical violence of innates attacking” Plaintiff while he slept on its “cyber security [infrastructure],” without knowing the bases for such alleged actions, the Court would be guessing as to its reasons.3 In sum, Plaintiff is not entitled to a preliminary or permanent injunction. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint (Doc. 14) is DENIED as moot; and 2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a district judge to this action. Further, for the reasons set forth above, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 14) be DENIED. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages without leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3 Plaintiff’s complaint includes only the following brief reference to his being “[assaulted] & sexually [assaulted] multiple times & it was [shared] through cyber security.” (See Doc. 1 at 3, italics added.)