Ramirez v. Pfeiffer

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: July 3, 2024
• Docket: 5:24-cv-01714
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 NARCISO RAMIREZ, 11 Case No. 24-cv-01714 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR v. STAY AND TEMPORARY 13 RESTRAINING ORDER 14 C. PFEIFFER, et al., Defendants. 15 (Docket Nos. 32, 36)

17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner who is currently confined at Kern Valley State Prison 19 (KVSP), filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the 20 Eastern District of California. Dkt. No. 1. The Eastern District transferred the matter to 21 this district after finding the second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 25) raised claims based 22 on an incident that took place at Salinas Valley State Prison in 2019. Dkt. No. 26. The 23 matter was reassigned to this Court on May 8, 2024. Dkt. No. 31. 24 Plaintiff filed a motion “to stay (pause) with extension of time and or to leave to 25 amen[d] complaint with good cause.” Dkt. No. 32. Plaintiff claims that his mail is being 26 tampered with and is therefore unable to “meet and reach courts, affecting status and 27 respect to complaints.” Id. at 1. The motion is DENIED as unnecessary because there are 1 || Court will conduct an initial screening of the second amended complaint for claims against 2 || SVSP defendants in due course. 3 Plaintiff has also filed a motion “to order cause for a preliminary injunction and a 4 || temporary restraining [order].” Dkt. No. 36. Plaintiff claims interference with access to 5 || the law library and other misconduct by prison officials at KVSP, and he seeks a “tro to 6 || cover... access to law library, access to attend assigned appointed groups, programs, 7 || medical ducats, etc.... to not be harassed continually nor discriminated upon.” /d. at 2-4. 8 || The motion must be denied because Plaintiff seeks a TRO against non-parties, i.e., g || individuals at KVSP. An injunction is binding only on parties to the action, their officers, 10 || agents, servants, employees and attorneys and those “in active concert or participation” 11 || with them. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d). In order to enforce an injunction against an entity, the 2 district court must have personal jurisdiction over that entity. In re Estate of Ferdinand E 13. || Marcos, 94 F.3d 539, 545 (9th Cir. 1996). The court should not issue an injunction that it S 14 || cannot enforce. /d. None of the named individuals in the TRO motion are parties to this 3 15 || action as they are KVSP personnel. Therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction over these 16 || non-parties to enforce a restraining order.

5 18 CONCLUSION 19 For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff's motion for a stay is DENIED as 20 || unnecessary, and the motion for a TRO is DENIED as unenforceable against non-parties. 71 Dkt. Nos. 32, 36. 2 This order terminates Docket Nos. 32 and 36. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: — July 3, 2024 fdiinfhacicen 95 BETH LABSON F REEMAN United States District Judge 26 |] Order Denying Stay and TRO 5 PRO-SE\BLF\CR.24\017 14Ramirez_tro&stay