(PC) Kile v. Doerer

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFF KILE, No. 1:24-cv-01177-KES-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE DENIED 14 J. DOERER, (ECF No. 23) 15 Defendant.

16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. 18 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed July 28, 19 2025. 20 I. 21 LEGAL STANDARD 22 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 23 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 24 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 25 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 26 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction 27 may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation 28 1 omitted). 2 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 3 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 4 have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); 5 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 6 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no 7 power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 8 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find 9 the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation 10 of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the 11 Federal right.” 12 Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 13 officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. 14 United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties 15 in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 16 U.S. at 491–93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 17 II. 18 DISCUSSION 19 In his motion, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on the lockdown at the United States 20 Petitionary in Atwater from August 9 to October 9, 2024. (ECF No. 23 at 1.) Plaintiff submits 21 that “[t]he prevailing attitude is that a lockdown suspends prisoner access to administrative 22 remedies, medical treatment, the ability to buy over the counter medicine, cleaning supplies, 23 confiscation of property and rejection of mail without written notice….” (Id.) Plaintiff requests 24 an order directing Warden J. Doerer to: (1) create and enforce a policy that a policy that ensures 25 administrative remedies are available twice a week during a lockdown; (2) ensure that all 26 outgoing mail is sent out not later than 72 hours after its receipt; (3) ensure the delivery of 27 incoming mail to an inmate no later than 72 hours after its receipt; (4) enforced the policy of 28 providing each inmate with a formal written rejection of all mail that is confiscated, rejected, or to 1 be returned; (5) suspend the confiscation of legal material by all staff members; (6) ensure that 2 each inmate is given the opportunity to go to sick call to see a doctor twice a week during a 3 lockdown that extends more than 72 hours; (7) allow each inmate to access and purchase a full 4 selection of over the counter medication twice a week during a lockdown; (8) provide cleaning 5 and cell sanitation supplies to each inmate twice a week; and (9) eliminate the discriminatory 6 medical policy which shows favoritism to inmates based on release date. (ECF No. 23 at 5-6.) 7 Here, Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief that he seeks. The 8 Court does not have personal jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction over Defendants because 9 none of the Defendants have received service of process as Plaintiff’s complaint is pending 10 screening under § 1915A. See Zepeda v. U.S. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 11 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the 12 parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of 13 persons not before the court.”). Thus, there is no case or controversy before the court and it 14 cannot be determined that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Further, 15 Plaintiff’s motion makes no showing that he will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an 16 injunction, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, or that an injunction is in the public 17 interest. Rather, Plaintiff mainly expresses his disagreement with some of the Court’s prior 18 orders. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied. 19 III. 20 RECOMMENDATION 21 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a 22 preliminary injunction, filed on July 28, 2025, (ECF No. 23), be DENIED. 23 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 25 days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 26 objections with the Court, limited to 15 pages in length, including exhibits. The document should 27 be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is 28 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 1 | onappeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 2 | Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 | so opexe. DAM Le 5 | Dated: _ July 29, 2025 STANLEY A. BOONE 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28