1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 D’ANNUNZIO ROMAN GAVIOLA No. 1:24-cv-00655-JLT-SAB (PC) PATRON, 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Plaintiff, REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION v. 14 (ECF No. 61) C. MARES, et al., 15
16 Defendants.
17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed 21 December 23, 2025. (ECF No. 61.) 22 I. 23 LEGAL STANDARD 24 A party requesting preliminary injunctive relief must show that “he is likely to succeed on 25 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 26 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. 27 Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Alternatively, under the so-called sliding scale 28 1 approach, as long as the plaintiff demonstrates the requisite likelihood of irreparable harm and 2 can show that an injunction is in the public interest, a preliminary injunction may issue so long as 3 serious questions going to the merits of the case are raised and the balance of hardships tips 4 sharply in plaintiff's favor. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-36 (9th 5 Cir. 2011) (concluding that the “serious questions” version of the sliding scale test for preliminary 6 injunctions remains viable after Winter). 7 Preliminary injunctive relief is an “extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a 8 clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. An injunction 9 against individuals not parties to an action is strongly disfavored. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. 10 Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969); Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 11 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal 12 jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claims ....”). In cases brought 13 by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary injunction must be narrowly 14 drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary 15 relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). 16 II. 17 DISCUSSION 18 Plaintiff initially seeks to amend the operative first amended complaint to demand a jury 19 trial. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) requires a party seeking a jury trial on a given issue 20 to serve “the other parties with a written demand—which may be included in a pleading—no later 21 than 14 days after the last pleading directed to the issue is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b). “[A] 22 party may specify the issues that it wishes to have tried by a jury; otherwise, it is considered to 23 have demanded a jury trial on all the issues so triable.” Id. at 38(c). Moreover, “[a] proper 24 demand may be withdrawn only if the parties consent.” Id. at 38(d). “Rule 38 has been interpreted 25 as incorporating a right of reasonable reliance on the jury demand of another party.” Cal. Scents 26 v. Surco Prod., Inc., 406 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations and internal quotation marks 27 omitted). In other words, “once one party files such a [jury] demand other parties are entitled to 28 rely on that demand for the issues it covers, and need not file their own demands.” Id. (alteration 1 in original) (quoting Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F.3d 1522, 1531 (9th Cir. 1995)). In general, 2 courts “ ‘indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver’ of the jury trial right.” Id. 3 (quoting Aetna Ins. Co. v. Kennedy ex rel. Bogash, 301 U.S. 389, 393 (1937)). 4 Rule 39 states, “[w]hen a jury trial has been demanded under Rule 38 ... [t]he trial on all 5 issues so demanded must be by jury unless” one of two conditions is met: either “(1) the parties 6 or their attorneys file a stipulation to a nonjury trial or so stipulate on the record; or (2) the court, 7 on motion or on its own, finds that on some or all of those issues there is no federal right to a jury 8 trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(a). 9 Here, Defendants have timely requested a jury trial and Plaintiff is entitled to rely on their 10 demand. Thus, since Defendants have made the jury demand, only a stipulation by the parties or 11 a court order could effect withdrawal of the demand. Fed. R. Civ. P. 39. In this instance, there is 12 neither a stipulation signed by the parties nor a prior court order determining the trial should 13 proceed without a jury. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to amend the operative complaint to 14 demand a jury trial is not necessary and any potential trial will proceed as a jury trial. 15 In addition, Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks in this 16 motion. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint for a due process 17 violation against individuals employed at the Fresno County Jail. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary 18 injunction for the return of a prisoner self-help litigation manual which was allegedly confiscated 19 as contraband at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, California. A district court has no 20 authority to grant relief in the form of a preliminary injunction where it has no jurisdiction over 21 the parties. Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (“A 22 federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject 23 matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before 24 the court.”) (citation omitted). To the extent plaintiff seeks an injunction against non-defendants, 25 the court does not have jurisdiction over those individuals unless plaintiff provides facts showing 26 that they are acting “in active concert or participation” with the defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 65(d)(2); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Rsch., Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969) (“[A] nonparty 28 with notice cannot be held in contempt until shown to be in concert or participation.”). Plaintiff 1 has failed to provide any such facts to make such a showing. Nor is Plaintiff’s claim that his 2 book was improperly classified as “contraband” is not related to Plaintiff’s due process claim in 3 this action. Price, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 D’ANNUNZIO ROMAN GAVIOLA No. 1:24-cv-00655-JLT-SAB (PC) PATRON, 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Plaintiff, REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION v. 14 (ECF No. 61) C. MARES, et al., 15
16 Defendants.
17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed 21 December 23, 2025. (ECF No. 61.) 22 I. 23 LEGAL STANDARD 24 A party requesting preliminary injunctive relief must show that “he is likely to succeed on 25 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 26 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. 27 Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Alternatively, under the so-called sliding scale 28 1 approach, as long as the plaintiff demonstrates the requisite likelihood of irreparable harm and 2 can show that an injunction is in the public interest, a preliminary injunction may issue so long as 3 serious questions going to the merits of the case are raised and the balance of hardships tips 4 sharply in plaintiff's favor. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-36 (9th 5 Cir. 2011) (concluding that the “serious questions” version of the sliding scale test for preliminary 6 injunctions remains viable after Winter). 7 Preliminary injunctive relief is an “extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a 8 clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. An injunction 9 against individuals not parties to an action is strongly disfavored. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. 10 Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969); Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 11 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal 12 jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claims ....”). In cases brought 13 by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary injunction must be narrowly 14 drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary 15 relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). 16 II. 17 DISCUSSION 18 Plaintiff initially seeks to amend the operative first amended complaint to demand a jury 19 trial. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) requires a party seeking a jury trial on a given issue 20 to serve “the other parties with a written demand—which may be included in a pleading—no later 21 than 14 days after the last pleading directed to the issue is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b). “[A] 22 party may specify the issues that it wishes to have tried by a jury; otherwise, it is considered to 23 have demanded a jury trial on all the issues so triable.” Id. at 38(c). Moreover, “[a] proper 24 demand may be withdrawn only if the parties consent.” Id. at 38(d). “Rule 38 has been interpreted 25 as incorporating a right of reasonable reliance on the jury demand of another party.” Cal. Scents 26 v. Surco Prod., Inc., 406 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations and internal quotation marks 27 omitted). In other words, “once one party files such a [jury] demand other parties are entitled to 28 rely on that demand for the issues it covers, and need not file their own demands.” Id. (alteration 1 in original) (quoting Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F.3d 1522, 1531 (9th Cir. 1995)). In general, 2 courts “ ‘indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver’ of the jury trial right.” Id. 3 (quoting Aetna Ins. Co. v. Kennedy ex rel. Bogash, 301 U.S. 389, 393 (1937)). 4 Rule 39 states, “[w]hen a jury trial has been demanded under Rule 38 ... [t]he trial on all 5 issues so demanded must be by jury unless” one of two conditions is met: either “(1) the parties 6 or their attorneys file a stipulation to a nonjury trial or so stipulate on the record; or (2) the court, 7 on motion or on its own, finds that on some or all of those issues there is no federal right to a jury 8 trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(a). 9 Here, Defendants have timely requested a jury trial and Plaintiff is entitled to rely on their 10 demand. Thus, since Defendants have made the jury demand, only a stipulation by the parties or 11 a court order could effect withdrawal of the demand. Fed. R. Civ. P. 39. In this instance, there is 12 neither a stipulation signed by the parties nor a prior court order determining the trial should 13 proceed without a jury. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to amend the operative complaint to 14 demand a jury trial is not necessary and any potential trial will proceed as a jury trial. 15 In addition, Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks in this 16 motion. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint for a due process 17 violation against individuals employed at the Fresno County Jail. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary 18 injunction for the return of a prisoner self-help litigation manual which was allegedly confiscated 19 as contraband at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, California. A district court has no 20 authority to grant relief in the form of a preliminary injunction where it has no jurisdiction over 21 the parties. Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (“A 22 federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject 23 matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before 24 the court.”) (citation omitted). To the extent plaintiff seeks an injunction against non-defendants, 25 the court does not have jurisdiction over those individuals unless plaintiff provides facts showing 26 that they are acting “in active concert or participation” with the defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 65(d)(2); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Rsch., Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969) (“[A] nonparty 28 with notice cannot be held in contempt until shown to be in concert or participation.”). Plaintiff 1 has failed to provide any such facts to make such a showing. Nor is Plaintiff’s claim that his 2 book was improperly classified as “contraband” is not related to Plaintiff’s due process claim in 3 this action. Price, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (“A federal court may issue 4 an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the 5 claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.”) (citation 6 omitted). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied. 7 III. 8 RECOMMENDATIONS 9 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a 10 preliminary injunction be denied. 11 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 12 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 13 (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 14 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 15 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 16 specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 17 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 Plaintiff wishes to amend the complaint to demand a jury trial in this action. Plaintiff 4 | wishes to clarify in his amended complaint that he agrees to this request. Id. However, Plaintiff's 5 || consent is not necessary for Defendant to exercise his right to request a jury trial. Id. Thus, 6 || amendment on this basis is not warranted. 7 g IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Se 9 | Dated: _ January 6, 2026 OF STANLEY A. BOONE 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28