Rhodes v. Ford

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KAVIN MAURICE RHODES, Case No. 20-cv-03128-PJH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR AN 9 v. INJUNCTION

10 D. FORD, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 81 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983. The court recently granted in part defendants’ motion for summary 15 judgment on exhaustion grounds. Several defendants and claims were dismissed, and 16 the court is waiting for a dispositive motion on the merits from the remaining defendants. 17 Presently pending is plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining 18 order. 19 A temporary restraining order preserves the status quo and prevents irreparable 20 harm until a hearing can be held on a preliminary injunction application. See Granny Goose 21 Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). 22 A temporary restraining order is an “extraordinary remedy” that the court should award only 23 when a plaintiff makes a clear showing that he is entitled to such relief. See Winter v. 24 Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). The standards for a temporary 25 restraining order are the same as those for a preliminary injunction. See Stuhlbarg Int'l 26 Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). A 27 plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of 1 in favor of the plaintiff, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. See Winter, 555 U.S. 2 at 20. The irreparable injury must be both likely and immediate. See id. at 22; Caribbean 3 Marine Services Co., Inc. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A plaintiff must 4 do more than merely allege imminent harm sufficient to establish standing; a plaintiff must 5 demonstrate immediate threatened injury as a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive relief.”) 6 Plaintiff seeks an injunction to stop retaliation by several individual due to his filing 7 of inmate appeals. However, plaintiff identifies individuals who were never parties to this 8 action or were recently dismissed. An injunction is binding only on parties to the action, 9 their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys and those "in active concert or 10 participation” with them. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d). In order to enforce an injunction against an 11 entity, the district court must have personal jurisdiction over that entity. In re Estate of 12 Ferdinand Marcos, 94 F.3d 539, 545 (9th Cir. 1996). The court should not issue an 13 injunction that it cannot enforce. Id. Plaintiff has not identified any defendants in this case 14 who could provide the relief he seeks. 15 Even if plaintiff had identified the appropriate defendants, he has not met his burden 16 under Winter. Plaintiff’s general and confusing allegations fail to demonstrate a likelihood 17 of success on the merits or irreparable harm. 18 For the foregoing reasons: 19 Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Docket No. 81) is DENIED. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: October 5, 2022 22 23 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 24 United States District Judge

26 27