1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 STEVEN R. RODRIGUEZ, No. 2:21-cv-1958 SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER and FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 RYAN TAIAROL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 18 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint (“TAC”) is pending 19 screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. On July 28, 2025, plaintiff filed an ex parte motion seeking 20 a court order for High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) personnel to return his active legal work 21 cases and law books that he needs to prosecute this case. (ECF No. 43.) The undersigned 22 construes this motion as seeking a preliminary injunction. For the reasons set forth below, the 23 undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion be denied. Plaintiff’s TAC will be screened 24 separately in due course. 26 I. Plaintiff’s Claims and Evidence 27 Plaintiff states that he transferred to High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) from the 28 California Rehabilitation Center (“CRC”) with all of his property on July 18, 2025. He was 1 transferred to receive a higher level of nursing care. (ECF No. 43 at 2.) On July 20, 2025, 2 plaintiff told C/O Torres he was on PLU status, had four active cases, and needed his legal 3 property. Torres told plaintiff that he would get his property if he was placed on extended stay 4 and brought him law library forms. (Id.) 5 The next day, Dr. Davis, plaintiff’s primary care provider, told plaintiff he would be at 6 HDSP long-term and would tell custody staff to get his property. (ECF No. 43 at 2.) Plaintiff 7 sought out C/O Torres the next day, July 22, 2025. Torres told plaintiff his property was sent 8 back. (Id.) On July 23, 2025, Dr. Davis saw plaintiff and made a progress note that he was 9 “extended stay.” (Id.) Plaintiff filed a 602 grievance on July 23, 2025, concerning Torres’ lies 10 and as an emergency appeal to return property. (Id. at 3.) As of July 23, 2025, plaintiff still did 11 not know where his property was. Plaintiff saw a mental health provider because he was agitated 12 and stressed out over pressing deadlines in his other actions. (Id.) 13 Plaintiff alleges Torres’ unauthorized shipping of his property back to CRC violated his 14 constitutional right to access the courts. (ECF No. 43 at 4.) Plaintiff’s deadline to file a 28 15 U.S.C. § 2254 action challenging his conviction is approaching. The § 2254 action is “part of the 16 outer scope” of the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action currently before this court. It will reverse his 17 conviction if its allegations are proven true. (Id.) Plaintiff requests an order directing HDSP 18 personnel to return and deliver his property. (Id.) 19 II. Legal Standard 20 A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that may only be granted if the moving 21 party satisfies one of two legal standards. A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must generally 22 establish all four of the following elements: (1) likely success on the merits of his underlying case; (2) 23 he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities 24 tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 25 740 (9th Cir. 2015). A plaintiff may also be entitled to a preliminary injunction by showing serious 26 questions going to the merits, irreparable harm, and a balance of equities that tips strongly in the 27 plaintiff’s favor. All. For the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011). 28 ///// 1 III. Discussion 2 Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because the undersigned does not have jurisdiction 3 over C/O Torres or any other HDSP personnel identified in the motion. Plaintiff’s TAC, which 4 alleges falsification of evidence by Stockton police officers and a CDCR special agent, has yet to 5 be screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (ECF No. 40.) Without an operative complaint and 6 service on defendants,1 the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter 7 jurisdiction over the claim. Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983) (“A federal 8 court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter 9 jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the 10 court.”). 11 Even if these jurisdictional barriers were not present, an injunction under Rule 65 binds 12 only “the parties to the action,” their “officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” and 13 “other persons who are in active concert or participation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(A)-(C); Zenith 14 Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). “The district court must, 15 therefore, tailor the injunction to affect only those persons over which it has power.” Zepeda, 753 16 F.2d at 727. Here, the HDSP personnel identified in plaintiff’s motion are not named as 17 defendants in the TAC, and plaintiff has not put forth any evidence that they are “in active 18 concert or participation” with the defendants. “The pendency of this action … does not give the 19 Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general[.]” Beaton v. Miller, No. 1:20-cv-0005 NONE 20 JLT PC, 2020 WL 5847014, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2020), report and recommendation adopted 21 sub nom. Beaton v. Valley State Prison, No. 1:20-cv-0005 NONE JLT PC, 2020 WL 7183691 22 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2020). 23 The undersigned recognizes the importance of plaintiff’s legal property to the prosecution 24 of his legal actions. But given the absence of an operative complaint and service on defendants, 25 as well as the lack of any nexus between the HDSP personnel and the defendants named in the 26 1 Although no parties have been served, attorneys for defendant City of Stockton previously 27 appeared and filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s original complaint. (ECF No. 24.) The previously assigned magistrate judge denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice as premature 28 because the complaint had not been screened. (ECF No. 28.) 1 | TAC, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff's motion be denied. Plaintiff is advised that the 2 || undersigned will screen his TAC in due course. If Plaintiff still needs emergency relief 3 || concerning his legal property, he may seek it in a new legal action. 5 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall 6 || randomly assign a district judge to this matter. 7 In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs ex parte motion for HDSP 8 || personnel to return his active legal work cases and law books (ECF No. 43), construed as a 9 || motion for preliminary injunction, be DENIED. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 11 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 STEVEN R. RODRIGUEZ, No. 2:21-cv-1958 SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER and FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 RYAN TAIAROL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 18 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint (“TAC”) is pending 19 screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. On July 28, 2025, plaintiff filed an ex parte motion seeking 20 a court order for High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) personnel to return his active legal work 21 cases and law books that he needs to prosecute this case. (ECF No. 43.) The undersigned 22 construes this motion as seeking a preliminary injunction. For the reasons set forth below, the 23 undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion be denied. Plaintiff’s TAC will be screened 24 separately in due course. 26 I. Plaintiff’s Claims and Evidence 27 Plaintiff states that he transferred to High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) from the 28 California Rehabilitation Center (“CRC”) with all of his property on July 18, 2025. He was 1 transferred to receive a higher level of nursing care. (ECF No. 43 at 2.) On July 20, 2025, 2 plaintiff told C/O Torres he was on PLU status, had four active cases, and needed his legal 3 property. Torres told plaintiff that he would get his property if he was placed on extended stay 4 and brought him law library forms. (Id.) 5 The next day, Dr. Davis, plaintiff’s primary care provider, told plaintiff he would be at 6 HDSP long-term and would tell custody staff to get his property. (ECF No. 43 at 2.) Plaintiff 7 sought out C/O Torres the next day, July 22, 2025. Torres told plaintiff his property was sent 8 back. (Id.) On July 23, 2025, Dr. Davis saw plaintiff and made a progress note that he was 9 “extended stay.” (Id.) Plaintiff filed a 602 grievance on July 23, 2025, concerning Torres’ lies 10 and as an emergency appeal to return property. (Id. at 3.) As of July 23, 2025, plaintiff still did 11 not know where his property was. Plaintiff saw a mental health provider because he was agitated 12 and stressed out over pressing deadlines in his other actions. (Id.) 13 Plaintiff alleges Torres’ unauthorized shipping of his property back to CRC violated his 14 constitutional right to access the courts. (ECF No. 43 at 4.) Plaintiff’s deadline to file a 28 15 U.S.C. § 2254 action challenging his conviction is approaching. The § 2254 action is “part of the 16 outer scope” of the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action currently before this court. It will reverse his 17 conviction if its allegations are proven true. (Id.) Plaintiff requests an order directing HDSP 18 personnel to return and deliver his property. (Id.) 19 II. Legal Standard 20 A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that may only be granted if the moving 21 party satisfies one of two legal standards. A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must generally 22 establish all four of the following elements: (1) likely success on the merits of his underlying case; (2) 23 he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities 24 tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 25 740 (9th Cir. 2015). A plaintiff may also be entitled to a preliminary injunction by showing serious 26 questions going to the merits, irreparable harm, and a balance of equities that tips strongly in the 27 plaintiff’s favor. All. For the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011). 28 ///// 1 III. Discussion 2 Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because the undersigned does not have jurisdiction 3 over C/O Torres or any other HDSP personnel identified in the motion. Plaintiff’s TAC, which 4 alleges falsification of evidence by Stockton police officers and a CDCR special agent, has yet to 5 be screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (ECF No. 40.) Without an operative complaint and 6 service on defendants,1 the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter 7 jurisdiction over the claim. Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983) (“A federal 8 court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter 9 jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the 10 court.”). 11 Even if these jurisdictional barriers were not present, an injunction under Rule 65 binds 12 only “the parties to the action,” their “officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” and 13 “other persons who are in active concert or participation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(A)-(C); Zenith 14 Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). “The district court must, 15 therefore, tailor the injunction to affect only those persons over which it has power.” Zepeda, 753 16 F.2d at 727. Here, the HDSP personnel identified in plaintiff’s motion are not named as 17 defendants in the TAC, and plaintiff has not put forth any evidence that they are “in active 18 concert or participation” with the defendants. “The pendency of this action … does not give the 19 Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general[.]” Beaton v. Miller, No. 1:20-cv-0005 NONE 20 JLT PC, 2020 WL 5847014, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2020), report and recommendation adopted 21 sub nom. Beaton v. Valley State Prison, No. 1:20-cv-0005 NONE JLT PC, 2020 WL 7183691 22 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2020). 23 The undersigned recognizes the importance of plaintiff’s legal property to the prosecution 24 of his legal actions. But given the absence of an operative complaint and service on defendants, 25 as well as the lack of any nexus between the HDSP personnel and the defendants named in the 26 1 Although no parties have been served, attorneys for defendant City of Stockton previously 27 appeared and filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s original complaint. (ECF No. 24.) The previously assigned magistrate judge denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice as premature 28 because the complaint had not been screened. (ECF No. 28.) 1 | TAC, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff's motion be denied. Plaintiff is advised that the 2 || undersigned will screen his TAC in due course. If Plaintiff still needs emergency relief 3 || concerning his legal property, he may seek it in a new legal action. 5 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall 6 || randomly assign a district judge to this matter. 7 In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs ex parte motion for HDSP 8 || personnel to return his active legal work cases and law books (ECF No. 43), construed as a 9 || motion for preliminary injunction, be DENIED. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 11 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 12 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 13 | with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 14 | to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be 15 | served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that 16 | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 17 || Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 | DATED: August 26, 2025 fork 20 SEAN C. RIORDAN 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28