(PC) Henderson v. Fresno County Jail

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 CURTIS LEE HENDERSON, SR., Case No.: 1:24-cv-01569 JLT SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 14 FRESNO COUNTY JAIL, et al., (Doc. 15) 15 Defendants.

16 17 Curtis Lee Henderson, Sr. seeks to hold the defendants liable for civil rights violations 18 while housed at the Fresno County Jail. (See generally Doc. 1.) Plaintiff filed a motion for a 19 preliminary injunction concurrent with his complaint, as well as an additional motion a month 20 later after the Sacramento Division transferred the matter to this Court. (Docs. 2, 11.) The 21 magistrate judge found Plaintiff fails to satisfy the factors identified by the Supreme Court in 22 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). (Doc. 15 at 6-7.) The magistrate 23 judge also observed that the Court does not yet have personal jurisdiction over the defendants and 24 may not grant the relief requested. (Id. at 5-6.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the 25 Court deny the motions for injunctive relief. (Id. at 7.) 26 Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 16.) 27 Plaintiff questions whether the Court can make a finding to the Winter factors when his complaint has not yet been screened. (Id. at 1-2.) He also notes that his complaint has been pending “more 1 than 120 days.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff maintains that he demonstrates probable success on the 2 merits and that because he suffered injury to his rectum, he showed an “irreparable” harm, such 3 that injunctive relief is appropriate. (Id.) 4 Significantly, though the Court has not issued a screening order on this action, it was not 5 precluded from reviewing the allegations of the complaint related to the pending motion. Indeed, 6 courts are regularly required to review pleadings for purposes of evaluating a motion for 7 injunctive relief without a full screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A or review of the sufficiency of 8 pleadings pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, Plaintiff’s objection that the 9 Court could not evaluate his motion without screening is unavailing. 10 As the magistrate judge explained, the Supreme Court determined that “[a] plaintiff 11 seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he 12 is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of the 13 equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural 14 Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted). 15 Importantly, as the magistrate judge determined, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over 16 the defendants—including the Fresno County Jail— at this time. Plaintiff does not dispute this 17 finding. Moreover, the Court does not find that Plaintiff demonstrates a likelihood of success on 18 the merits, or that his past physical injury shows he is likely to suffer irreparable harm, such as 19 that the requested relief is appropriate. See Conn. v. Mass., 282 U.S. 660, 674 (1931) (past injury 20 does not support a request for preliminary injunction); see also Rigsby v. State, 2013 WL 21 1283778, at *5 (D. Ariz. Mar. 28, 2013) (denying prisoner’s request for injunctive relief based on 22 fear of potential future injury based on past assaults); Perez v. Diaz, 2019 WL 3229622, at *3 23 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2019), recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 3986657 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 24 2019) (“allegations of past incidents of violence fail to show that plaintiff ... faces imminent 25 harm”). 26 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 27 Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes 1 | Court ORDERS: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued July 10, 2025 (Doc. 15) are 3 ADOPTED in full. 4 2. Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief (Docs. 2 and 11) are DENIED without 5 prejudice. 6 3 Dated: _ August 1, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28