1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM ALLEN GARRETT, No. 2:16-cv-1336 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JEFF MACOMBER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983, has filed eight motions for preliminary injunction. ECF Nos. 76, 79, 81, 82, 84, 85, 88, 19 90.1 20 I. Plaintiff’s Allegations 21 The complaint alleges that defendants Baker and Masterson violated plaintiff’s rights 22 under the Fourteenth Amendment. ECF No. 1 at 4. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendant 23 Baker denied him due process when he refused to call plaintiff’s psychiatric doctor during the 24 hearing on his rules violation, and that Baker intentionally gives out disparate punishment to 25 prisoners who suffer from mental illness. Id. Defendant Masterson also allegedly discriminated 26 1 Plaintiff’s motions to compel (ECF No. 63), for a settlement conference (ECF No. 66), a 27 pretrial conference (ECF No. 67), separate trials (ECF No. 69), reconsideration (ECF No. 71), for discovery (ECF No. 73), and for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 86, 96) are addressed by 28 separate order. 1 against plaintiff when he removed plaintiff from his yard crew assignment because of his mental 2 illness and wrote him up for the rules violation that resulted in the loss of his job. Id. at 4, 32-33. 3 II. Motions for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction 4 Plaintiff has filed eight motions for a temporary restraining order or preliminary 5 injunction. ECF Nos. 76, 79, 81, 82, 84, 85, 88, 90. The motions are based on the conduct of 6 various prison officials at the California Men’s Colony. Id. 7 A. Standards for Issuing a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction 8 A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary measure of relief that a federal court 9 may impose without notice to the adverse party if, in an affidavit or verified complaint, the 10 movant “clearly show[s] that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the 11 movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). The 12 standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is essentially the same as that for issuing a 13 preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 14 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that the analysis for temporary restraining orders and preliminary 15 injunctions is “substantially identical”). 16 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish [(1)] that he is likely to 17 succeed on the merits, [(2)] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 18 preliminary relief, [(3)] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [(4)] that an injunction is 19 in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations 20 omitted). The Ninth Circuit has held that “‘serious questions going to the merits’ and a balance 21 of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary 22 injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and 23 that the injunction is in the public interest,” even if the moving party cannot show that he is likely 24 to succeed on the merits. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 25 2011). Under either formulation of the principles, preliminary injunctive relief should be denied 26 if the probability of success on the merits is low. Johnson v. Cal. State Bd. of Accountancy, 72 27 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (“‘[E]ven if the balance of hardships tips decidedly in favor of 28 the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible minimum that there is a fair chance of 1 success on the merits.’” (quoting Martin v. Int’l Olympic Comm., 740 F.2d 670, 675 (9th Cir. 2 1984))). 3 In order to prevail on a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, the Ninth Circuit has also 4 held 5 that there must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the 6 underlying complaint. This requires a sufficient nexus between the claims raised in a motion for injunctive relief and the claims set 7 forth in the underlying complaint itself. The relationship between the preliminary injunction and the underlying complaint is 8 sufficiently strong where the preliminary injunction would grant “relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally.” 9 De Beers Consol. Mines[ v. United States], 325 U.S. [212,] 220, 65 S. Ct. 1130 [(1945)]. Absent that relationship or nexus, the district 10 court lacks authority to grant the relief requested. 11 Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). 12 B. Plaintiff Has Not Satisfied the Standards for Injunctive Relief 13 In this case, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on the merits. 14 Moreover, the injuries claimed in the motions for injunctive relief, while similar to those alleged 15 in the complaint, do not have a sufficient nexus to the claims in the complaint to support relief. 16 The injuries asserted as the basis for injunctive relief arise from separate transactions and 17 occurrences at a different prison and involving different individuals from those at issue in the 18 complaint. Accordingly, the undersigned turns to the issues of jurisdiction and mootness. 19 C. The Court Lacks Jurisdiction 20 A district court has no authority to grant relief in the form of a temporary restraining order 21 or preliminary injunction where it has no jurisdiction over the parties. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon 22 Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 584 (1999) (“Personal jurisdiction, too, is an essential element of the 23 jurisdiction of a district . . . court, without which the court is powerless to proceed to an 24 adjudication.” (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation omitted)); Paccar Int’l, Inc. 25 v. Commercial Bank of Kuwait, S.A.K., 757 F.2d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 1985) (vacating district 26 court’s order granting preliminary injunction for lack of personal jurisdiction). 27 Plaintiff seeks relief based on the conduct of non-defendant prison officials, whose future 28 conduct he seeks to enjoin, and the court does not have jurisdiction over those individuals unless 1 he provides facts showing that they are acting “in active concert or participation” with the 2 defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 3 100, 112 (1969) (“[A] nonparty with notice cannot be held in contempt until shown to be in 4 concert or participation.”)). Plaintiff has failed to provide any such facts. Because the court lacks 5 jurisdiction over the individuals against whom plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, the motion must be 6 denied.
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 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM ALLEN GARRETT, No. 2:16-cv-1336 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JEFF MACOMBER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983, has filed eight motions for preliminary injunction. ECF Nos. 76, 79, 81, 82, 84, 85, 88, 19 90.1 20 I. Plaintiff’s Allegations 21 The complaint alleges that defendants Baker and Masterson violated plaintiff’s rights 22 under the Fourteenth Amendment. ECF No. 1 at 4. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendant 23 Baker denied him due process when he refused to call plaintiff’s psychiatric doctor during the 24 hearing on his rules violation, and that Baker intentionally gives out disparate punishment to 25 prisoners who suffer from mental illness. Id. Defendant Masterson also allegedly discriminated 26 1 Plaintiff’s motions to compel (ECF No. 63), for a settlement conference (ECF No. 66), a 27 pretrial conference (ECF No. 67), separate trials (ECF No. 69), reconsideration (ECF No. 71), for discovery (ECF No. 73), and for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 86, 96) are addressed by 28 separate order. 1 against plaintiff when he removed plaintiff from his yard crew assignment because of his mental 2 illness and wrote him up for the rules violation that resulted in the loss of his job. Id. at 4, 32-33. 3 II. Motions for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction 4 Plaintiff has filed eight motions for a temporary restraining order or preliminary 5 injunction. ECF Nos. 76, 79, 81, 82, 84, 85, 88, 90. The motions are based on the conduct of 6 various prison officials at the California Men’s Colony. Id. 7 A. Standards for Issuing a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction 8 A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary measure of relief that a federal court 9 may impose without notice to the adverse party if, in an affidavit or verified complaint, the 10 movant “clearly show[s] that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the 11 movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). The 12 standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is essentially the same as that for issuing a 13 preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 14 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that the analysis for temporary restraining orders and preliminary 15 injunctions is “substantially identical”). 16 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish [(1)] that he is likely to 17 succeed on the merits, [(2)] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 18 preliminary relief, [(3)] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [(4)] that an injunction is 19 in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations 20 omitted). The Ninth Circuit has held that “‘serious questions going to the merits’ and a balance 21 of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary 22 injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and 23 that the injunction is in the public interest,” even if the moving party cannot show that he is likely 24 to succeed on the merits. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 25 2011). Under either formulation of the principles, preliminary injunctive relief should be denied 26 if the probability of success on the merits is low. Johnson v. Cal. State Bd. of Accountancy, 72 27 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (“‘[E]ven if the balance of hardships tips decidedly in favor of 28 the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible minimum that there is a fair chance of 1 success on the merits.’” (quoting Martin v. Int’l Olympic Comm., 740 F.2d 670, 675 (9th Cir. 2 1984))). 3 In order to prevail on a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, the Ninth Circuit has also 4 held 5 that there must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the 6 underlying complaint. This requires a sufficient nexus between the claims raised in a motion for injunctive relief and the claims set 7 forth in the underlying complaint itself. The relationship between the preliminary injunction and the underlying complaint is 8 sufficiently strong where the preliminary injunction would grant “relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally.” 9 De Beers Consol. Mines[ v. United States], 325 U.S. [212,] 220, 65 S. Ct. 1130 [(1945)]. Absent that relationship or nexus, the district 10 court lacks authority to grant the relief requested. 11 Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). 12 B. Plaintiff Has Not Satisfied the Standards for Injunctive Relief 13 In this case, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on the merits. 14 Moreover, the injuries claimed in the motions for injunctive relief, while similar to those alleged 15 in the complaint, do not have a sufficient nexus to the claims in the complaint to support relief. 16 The injuries asserted as the basis for injunctive relief arise from separate transactions and 17 occurrences at a different prison and involving different individuals from those at issue in the 18 complaint. Accordingly, the undersigned turns to the issues of jurisdiction and mootness. 19 C. The Court Lacks Jurisdiction 20 A district court has no authority to grant relief in the form of a temporary restraining order 21 or preliminary injunction where it has no jurisdiction over the parties. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon 22 Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 584 (1999) (“Personal jurisdiction, too, is an essential element of the 23 jurisdiction of a district . . . court, without which the court is powerless to proceed to an 24 adjudication.” (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation omitted)); Paccar Int’l, Inc. 25 v. Commercial Bank of Kuwait, S.A.K., 757 F.2d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 1985) (vacating district 26 court’s order granting preliminary injunction for lack of personal jurisdiction). 27 Plaintiff seeks relief based on the conduct of non-defendant prison officials, whose future 28 conduct he seeks to enjoin, and the court does not have jurisdiction over those individuals unless 1 he provides facts showing that they are acting “in active concert or participation” with the 2 defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 3 100, 112 (1969) (“[A] nonparty with notice cannot be held in contempt until shown to be in 4 concert or participation.”)). Plaintiff has failed to provide any such facts. Because the court lacks 5 jurisdiction over the individuals against whom plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, the motion must be 6 denied. Zepeda v. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an 7 injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the 8 claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.”). 9 D. The Motions Are Moot 10 Plaintiff recently filed a notice of change of address showing that he has been transferred 11 from the California Men’s Colony to Salinas Valley State Prison. ECF No. 92. An inmate’s 12 transfer from a prison facility generally moots claims for injunctive relief against officials of that 13 facility. Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[W]hen a prisoner is moved from a 14 prison, his action will usually become moot as to conditions at that particular facility” (citing 15 Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368-69 (9th Cir. 1995))); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 16 (9th Cir. 1991) (claims for injunctive relief related to conditions of confinement were moot where 17 prisoner was transferred to another facility and “demonstrated no reasonable expectation of 18 returning to [the original facility].” (citing Darring v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 19 1986))). Therefore, to the extent plaintiff seeks to enjoin the conduct of individuals at the 20 California Men’s Colony, his claims for relief are moot in light of his transfer to Salinas Valley 21 State Prison and an absence of evidence that he will be subject to those conditions again. 22 To the extent it appears that plaintiff may be attempting to raise new claims related to the 23 incidents at California Men’s Colony, this case is not the appropriate avenue for pursuing those 24 claims. If plaintiff wants to file a complaint related to the conditions he experienced at California 25 Men’s Colony, he must do so in a separate action and that action must be brought in the United 26 States District Court for the Central District of California. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motions for preliminary 28 injunction, ECF Nos. 76, 79, 81, 82, 84, 85, 88, 90, be denied. 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 3 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 4 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 5 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 6 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 7 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 8 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 | DATED: November 25, 2019 ~ 10 Chthien—Chare ALLISON CLAIRE 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28