1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID WAYNE WILSON, Case No.: 1:22-cv-00455-AWI-BAK (GSA) (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 13 v. DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 14 LURA MERRITT, et al., (Doc. 2) 15 Defendants. 14-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE 16
17 Plaintiff David Wayne Wilson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 20 On April 18, 2022, simultaneous with the filing of his complaint initiating this action, 21 Plaintiff filed the instant “Motion for Temporary and Injunctive Relief for Imminent Danger 22 Inadequate Medical Health No Doctor B-Facility Clinic Where Nurse Practioner [sic] 23 Misadiagnose [sic] and Valley Fever Prison Retains African Americans for Morbidity and Death 24 and No Mitigation of Inhalation of Cocci Fungus Spores.” (Doc. 2.) 25 I. THE SUBSTANCE OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 26 Plaintiff seeks an injunction for “exclusion of Plaintiff and African Americans from SATF 27 B-Facility for cocci Valley Fever.” (Doc. 2 at 3.) Further, Plaintiff asks that “prison SATF be 1 imminent danger of injury and harm by Defendant’s non-compliance with their Rules and Regs 2 for protection of Inhalation of cocci Dust and Fungus Spores.” (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiff seeks 3 an order directing that “B-Facility” prisoners “be seen by medical doctor for Nurse Practioner 4 [sic] ‘Not’ doctor” who “refuses to listen,” misdiagnoses following inadequate assessments and 5 nurses who are deliberately indifferent “to ‘Group Class’ prisoners based on race discrimination 6 and denial of Equal Protections under the law for adequate medical health care.” (Id. at 2-3.) 7 Plaintiff contends he “has shown the sliding scale tips in his favor and a Significant threat or 8 irreparable injury to himself and others,” asking the Court to take judicial notice of several cases, 9 including “Plata v Newsom,” “Coleman v. Newsom,” “Armstrong v. Brown,” Armstrong v. 10 Newsom,” and “Plata v. Brown.” (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff contends he “and African Americans meet” 11 the Valley Fever exclusion policy “for SATF B-Facility, and also contends he and Others 12 similarly situated will suffer future harm from cocci Valley Fever exposure.” (Id. at 6.) 13 Additionally, Plaintiff contends neither the doctors nor nurse practitioners at B-Facility listen, 14 resulting in “improper assessment, diagnosis and evaluations,” and that the nurses “show implicit 15 bias for trained to be impartial to [P]laintiff and African Americans.” (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff 16 contends “prisoners are entitled to ‘shelter which does not . . . threaten ‘their mental and physical 17 well being.’” (Id.) 18 II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS 19 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” 1 Winter 20 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 21 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 22 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 23 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20. 24 In addition, a “federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction 25 over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the 26
27 1 “The standard for a [temporary restraining order] is the same as for a preliminary injunction.” Rovio Entm’t Ltd. v. Royal Plush Toys, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1092 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. 1 rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). 2 “[A]n injunction must be narrowly tailored ‘to affect only those persons over which it has power,’ 3 . . . and to remedy only the specific harms shown by the plaintiffs, rather than ‘to enjoin all 4 possible breaches of the law.’” Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) 5 (quoting Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727, 728 n.1). 6 Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 7 officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. 8 United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court's jurisdiction is limited to the parties 9 in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 10 U.S. at 491-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 11 A “federal court may issue an injunction [only] 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.” Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). “[A]n 14 injunction must be narrowly tailored ‘to affect only those persons over which it has power,’ . . . 15 and to remedy only the specific harms shown by the plaintiffs, rather than ‘to enjoin all possible 16 breaches of the law.’” Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting 17 Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727, 728 n.1). 18 III. DISCUSSION 19 Initially, the undersigned notes Plaintiff appears to seek an injunction on behalf of he and 20 other African American inmates housed in B-Facility at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility 21 (“SATF”) in Corcoran. However, to the extent Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of other prisoners, 22 he has no standing to do so. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 114 (1976) (“Ordinarily, one 23 may not claim standing in this Court to vindicate the constitutional rights of some third party”). 24 Plaintiff also may not represent a class of inmates in a putative class action. See Simon v. 25 Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664–65 (9th Cir. 2008) (“As the district court accurately 26 pointed out, courts have routinely adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from 27 pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity”); Claxton v. Ryan, No. CV 11– 1 plaintiffs “may not appear as an attorney for other persons in a class action”); Reed v. Board of 2 Prison Terms, No. C 03–2917 MMC PR, 2003 WL 21982471, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2003) 3 (“Pro se prisoner plaintiffs may not bring class actions because they are not adequate class 4 representatives able to fairly represent and adequately protect the interests of the class”). 5 In any event, Plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing to warrant the granting of a 6 temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. 7 First, no defendant in this action has been served with process. Until one or more of the 8 defendants have been served with process, this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them and 9 may not grant the injunctive relief that Plaintiff requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
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 DAVID WAYNE WILSON, Case No.: 1:22-cv-00455-AWI-BAK (GSA) (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 13 v. DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 14 LURA MERRITT, et al., (Doc. 2) 15 Defendants. 14-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE 16
17 Plaintiff David Wayne Wilson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 20 On April 18, 2022, simultaneous with the filing of his complaint initiating this action, 21 Plaintiff filed the instant “Motion for Temporary and Injunctive Relief for Imminent Danger 22 Inadequate Medical Health No Doctor B-Facility Clinic Where Nurse Practioner [sic] 23 Misadiagnose [sic] and Valley Fever Prison Retains African Americans for Morbidity and Death 24 and No Mitigation of Inhalation of Cocci Fungus Spores.” (Doc. 2.) 25 I. THE SUBSTANCE OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 26 Plaintiff seeks an injunction for “exclusion of Plaintiff and African Americans from SATF 27 B-Facility for cocci Valley Fever.” (Doc. 2 at 3.) Further, Plaintiff asks that “prison SATF be 1 imminent danger of injury and harm by Defendant’s non-compliance with their Rules and Regs 2 for protection of Inhalation of cocci Dust and Fungus Spores.” (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiff seeks 3 an order directing that “B-Facility” prisoners “be seen by medical doctor for Nurse Practioner 4 [sic] ‘Not’ doctor” who “refuses to listen,” misdiagnoses following inadequate assessments and 5 nurses who are deliberately indifferent “to ‘Group Class’ prisoners based on race discrimination 6 and denial of Equal Protections under the law for adequate medical health care.” (Id. at 2-3.) 7 Plaintiff contends he “has shown the sliding scale tips in his favor and a Significant threat or 8 irreparable injury to himself and others,” asking the Court to take judicial notice of several cases, 9 including “Plata v Newsom,” “Coleman v. Newsom,” “Armstrong v. Brown,” Armstrong v. 10 Newsom,” and “Plata v. Brown.” (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff contends he “and African Americans meet” 11 the Valley Fever exclusion policy “for SATF B-Facility, and also contends he and Others 12 similarly situated will suffer future harm from cocci Valley Fever exposure.” (Id. at 6.) 13 Additionally, Plaintiff contends neither the doctors nor nurse practitioners at B-Facility listen, 14 resulting in “improper assessment, diagnosis and evaluations,” and that the nurses “show implicit 15 bias for trained to be impartial to [P]laintiff and African Americans.” (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff 16 contends “prisoners are entitled to ‘shelter which does not . . . threaten ‘their mental and physical 17 well being.’” (Id.) 18 II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS 19 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” 1 Winter 20 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 21 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 22 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 23 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20. 24 In addition, a “federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction 25 over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the 26
27 1 “The standard for a [temporary restraining order] is the same as for a preliminary injunction.” Rovio Entm’t Ltd. v. Royal Plush Toys, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1092 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. 1 rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). 2 “[A]n injunction must be narrowly tailored ‘to affect only those persons over which it has power,’ 3 . . . and to remedy only the specific harms shown by the plaintiffs, rather than ‘to enjoin all 4 possible breaches of the law.’” Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) 5 (quoting Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727, 728 n.1). 6 Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 7 officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. 8 United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court's jurisdiction is limited to the parties 9 in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 10 U.S. at 491-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 11 A “federal court may issue an injunction [only] 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.” Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). “[A]n 14 injunction must be narrowly tailored ‘to affect only those persons over which it has power,’ . . . 15 and to remedy only the specific harms shown by the plaintiffs, rather than ‘to enjoin all possible 16 breaches of the law.’” Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting 17 Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727, 728 n.1). 18 III. DISCUSSION 19 Initially, the undersigned notes Plaintiff appears to seek an injunction on behalf of he and 20 other African American inmates housed in B-Facility at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility 21 (“SATF”) in Corcoran. However, to the extent Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of other prisoners, 22 he has no standing to do so. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 114 (1976) (“Ordinarily, one 23 may not claim standing in this Court to vindicate the constitutional rights of some third party”). 24 Plaintiff also may not represent a class of inmates in a putative class action. See Simon v. 25 Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664–65 (9th Cir. 2008) (“As the district court accurately 26 pointed out, courts have routinely adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from 27 pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity”); Claxton v. Ryan, No. CV 11– 1 plaintiffs “may not appear as an attorney for other persons in a class action”); Reed v. Board of 2 Prison Terms, No. C 03–2917 MMC PR, 2003 WL 21982471, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2003) 3 (“Pro se prisoner plaintiffs may not bring class actions because they are not adequate class 4 representatives able to fairly represent and adequately protect the interests of the class”). 5 In any event, Plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing to warrant the granting of a 6 temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. 7 First, no defendant in this action has been served with process. Until one or more of the 8 defendants have been served with process, this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them and 9 may not grant the injunctive relief that Plaintiff requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2); Murphy 10 Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999); Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 11 F.2d at 727. At present, the Court has no actual case or controversy before it. City of L.A. v. 12 Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102. 13 A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits 14 Next, even if this Court has personal jurisdiction over the named Defendants, Plaintiff has 15 not established that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. 16 Council, Inc., 555 U.S. at 20. In deciding whether a preliminary injunction should issue, the 17 likelihood of success on the merits is the most important factor for the court to consider. Disney 18 Enterprises, Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc., 869 F.3d 848, 856 (9th Cir. 2017). Plaintiff’s complaint has 19 not yet been screened as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). This Court is one of the busiest 20 district courts in the nation. Complaints are generally screened in the order in which they were 21 filed; there are hundreds of pro se prisoner complaints pending screening in this Court. Plaintiff’s 22 complaint will be screened in due course. Until Plaintiff’s complaint has been found to state a 23 cognizable claim or claims against any named Defendant, a determination concerning the 24 likelihood of Plaintiff’s success on the merits of his claims cannot be made. 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 B. Irreparable Harm 2 Plaintiff must demonstrate that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 3 preliminary relief. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Here, Plaintiff claims “a Significant threat or 4 irreparable injury to himself and others,” citing to a several other cases filed in a variety of federal 5 courts.2 (Doc. 2 at 4.) 6 A brief review of Plaintiff’s complaint3 and the instant motion reveals however that 7 Plaintiff has presented no medical evidence—beyond his own assertions, medical grievances, and 8 grievance responses—which would allow the court to conclude that Plaintiff will suffer 9 irreparable harm. While the Court is aware that certain prison facilities present a potential for 10 danger of Valley Fever to individuals who are determined to be more susceptible to the disease, 11 the fact Plaintiff is incarcerated at SATF, in the absence of medical evidence or records to 12 establish that he is indeed more susceptible and likely to contract Valley Fever, that information 13 is insufficient to employ the extraordinary remedy Plaintiff seeks. Thus, the court will 14 recommend this motion be denied without prejudice. See, e.g., Cortinas v. Soltanian, No. 2”20- 15 cv-1067 EFB P, 2020 WL 4922380, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2020) (plaintiff’s declaration and 16 grievances, in the absence of medical evidence, is insufficient to establish irreparable harm); 17 Parker v. Adu-Tutu, No. CV 10-2747-PHX-GMS (ECV), 2012 WL 1894096, 2012 WL 1894096, 18 at *4 (Dist. Ariz. May 22, 2012) (finding that “absent any medical records or medical evidence to 19 show that Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm and that there is a likelihood of success on the 20 merits, the Court declines to issue an injunction”). In the absence of such a showing, Plaintiff's 21 contentions of future injury from incarceration at SATF and the risk of contracting Valley Fever 22 are, at this time, theoretical and speculative rather than “likely.” 23 // 24 2 “Plata v. Newsom, U. S.N.D., Court, No. C-01-01351-JST; Coleman v. Newsom, U.S.E.D., Court, No. civ-S-90- 25 0520-KJM-DB, concerns inadequate Medical & Mental Care, as Armstrong v. Brown, 732 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2011), Armstrong v. Newsom, March 1l, 2021, REMEDIAL PLAN, five prisons, includes SATF; Plata v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 26 (2001).” (Doc. 2 at 4.)
27 3 Plaintiff’s complaint is 19 pages in length and is supported by 128 additional pages of exhibits. The complaint names at least 13 defendants and asserts at least 3 claims. Screening will determine whether Plaintiff has presented 1 C. Other Factors 2 Finally, the Court need not consider the other Winter factors—the balance of equities tips 3 in his favor and an injunction is in the public interest—because Plaintiff must meet all four 4 factors. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20; Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 5 (9th Cir. 2011) (Winter requires a plaintiff to make a showing on all the Winter factors). As 6 explained above, Plaintiff is unable to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or 7 irreparable harm. 8 A. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9 For the reasons given above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s motion for 10 temporary restraining order (Doc. 2) be DENIED without prejudice. 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)(1). Within 14 days 13 from the date of service, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document 14 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff 15 is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 16 on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 17 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20
21 Dated: July 19, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22
23 24 25 26 27