Darrell Parks v. Wren et al
Filing
73
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Judge Stephen V. Wilson: IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion 57 is DENIED. (kh)
1
O
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DARRELL JAMES PARKS,
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
WREN, et al.,
Defendants.
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. ED CV 12-1353 SVW (JCG)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
16
For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies plaintiff Darrell James Parks’
17
18
(“Plaintiff”) Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order
19
(“Motion”). [Dkt. No. 57.] Specifically, Plaintiff requests an order directing certain
20
staff members at the United States Penitentiary Terre Haute in Indiana (“U.S.P. Terre
21
Haute staff”) to allow Plaintiff to possess his legal materials. (Mot. at 2.)1 Because the
22
Court has no jurisdiction over U.S.P. Terre Haute staff, the Court is without authority
23
to grant the relief requested.
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of
24
25
right.” Winter v. Nat. Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). To
26
1
27
28
For ease of reference, the Court uses CM/ECF pagination in referring to the Motion.
1
merit a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he is likely to succeed
2
on the merits, (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
3
relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public
4
interest. Id. at 20.
5
In addition, a federal court must have jurisdiction over the parties the plaintiff
6
seeks to enjoin. Zepeda v. United States I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985)
7
(explaining that a federal court may issue an injunction only “if it has personal
8
jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim” ). The court
9
“may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before [it].” Id. Accordingly,
10
“[u]nder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), an injunction binds only ‘the parties to
11
the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and . . . those
12
persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the
13
order . . . .’” Id. (internal citation omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1) (“The
14
court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party.”)
15
(emphasis added).
16
Here, in order to grant Plaintiff his desired relief, the Court must be able to
17
exercise jurisdiction over the non-moving parties. The Court cannot do that. The
18
operative claim in the First Amended Complaint concerns an alleged incident that
19
occurred at the United States Penitentiary Victorville and the one remaining defendant,
20
R. Villegas (“Defendant”), is a correctional officer there. (See generally FAC), but in
21
his Motion, Plaintiff alleges that the staff at U.S.P. Terre Haute in Indiana, where
22
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated, confiscated his legal materials concerning the
23
underlying complaint. (See generally Mot.) As such, he seeks an order directing
24
U.S.P. Terre Haute staff to return his legal materials. (See id. at 2.) However, U.S.P.
25
Terre Haute staff are not parties to this action, nor are they Defendant’s officers,
26
agents, servants, employees, and attorneys. See Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727. Further,
27
Plaintiff has not alleged that U.S.P. Terre Haute staff are in active concert or
28
participation with Defendant, who is sued in his individual capacity in any event. (See
2
1
generally Mot.) The Court thus lacks the authority to direct U.S.P. Terre Haute staff to
2
provide the relief Plaintiff seeks. See Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727.
3
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
4
5
DATED: February 21, 2018
6
__________________________________
7
HON. STEPHEN V. WILSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?