Randolph v. Nix et al

Filing 71

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/4/2015 recommending that 68 MOTION for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION be denied. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 5/21/2015. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

COLIN M. RANDOLPH,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DENY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
(ECF No. 68)

B. NIX, et al.,

14

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00392-LJO-MJS (PC)

Defendants.

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION
DEADLINE

15
16
17

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

19

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against

20

Defendants Avery and Akano on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical indifference

21

claim. (ECF No. 19.)
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s March 27, 2015 motion for a preliminary injunction.

22
23

(ECF No. 68.) Defendants filed no opposition.

24

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

25

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, never awarded as

26

of right. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008) (citations omitted). A plaintiff

27

seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits,

28

1

that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the

2

balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter

3

v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). A preliminary injunction may issue

4

where the plaintiff demonstrates the existence of serious questions going to the merits

5

and the hardship balance tips sharply toward the plaintiff, assuming the other two

6

elements of the Winter test are also met. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632

7

F.3d 1127, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2011). Under either formulation of the principles,

8

preliminary injunctive relief should be denied if the probability of success on the merits is

9

low. See Johnson v. Cal. State Bd. of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995)

10

(even if the balance of hardships tips decidedly in favor of the moving party, it must be

11

shown as an irreducible minimum that there is a fair chance of success on the merits).

12

In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary

13

injunction must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm

14

the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to

15

correct the harm. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

16

III.

ANALYSIS

17

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin medical personnel at Kern Valley State Prison from

18

retaliating against him and exhibiting medical indifference to his serious medical needs.

19

Specifically, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against Nurse Practitioner Lozovoy, Dr. Chen,

20

LVN Rodriguez, and RN Grewall.

21

This action proceeds against Defendants Avery and Akano. The individuals

22

against whom Plaintiff seeks relief are not parties to the action and have not submitted to

23

the jurisdiction of this Court. The Court does not have jurisdiction to order injunctive relief

24

which would require directing parties not before the Court to take action. Zepeda v.

25

United States Immigration & Naturalization Servs., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A

26

federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and

27

subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of

28

persons not before the court.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion should be denied. If
2

1

Plaintiff wishes to pursue relief against these individuals, he must do so in a separate

2

action.

3

IV.

4
5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s

motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 68) be DENIED.

6

The findings and recommendation will be submitted to the United States District

7

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

8

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and recommendation, the

9

parties may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned

10

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” A party may respond

11

to another party’s objections by filing a response within fourteen (14) days after being

12

served with a copy of that party’s objections. The parties are advised that failure to file

13

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.

14

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923

15

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 4, 2015

/s/

19

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3