McCoy v. Kelso, et al.

Filing 242

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 241 Motion for TRO be denied signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/22/2020. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R's due within 14-Days.(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

JOSEPH RAYMOND MCCOY,
Plaintiff,
v.
STRONACH, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

Case No.: 1:12-cv-000983-AWI-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
BE DENIED
[ECF No. 241]

Plaintiff Joseph Raymond McCoy is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, filed on July
20, 2020.

21

I.

22

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

23

This action is proceeding against Defendants Stronach, Gonzales, LeMay, Beltran, Fisher,

24

Snell and Tann for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth

25

Amendment.

26
27
28

On April 25, 2019, the Court issued an amended scheduling order, and the deadline for
completion of all discovery is October 2, 2019. (ECF No. 129.)
The dispositive motion deadline is June 29, 2020. (ECF No. 222.)
1

As previously stated, on July 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining

1
2

order. (ECF No. 241.)

3

II.

4

LEGAL STANDARD
The purpose of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction is to preserve the

5
6

status quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to

7

intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of

8

Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction [or

9

temporary restraining order] must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely

10

to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his

11

favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council,

12

Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be

13
14

granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.”

15

Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). A party

16

seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction simply cannot prevail when that motion

17

is unsupported by evidence.

Mazurek v.

18

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary

19

injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it an

20

actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge

21

Christian Coll. V. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If

22

the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in

23

question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the

24

Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn,

25

extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive

26

means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.”

27

///

28

///
2

1

A federal court may issue emergency injunctive relief only if it has personal jurisdiction over

2

the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. See Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe

3

Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that one “becomes a party officially, and is required

4

to take action in that capacity, only upon service of summons or other authority-asserting measure stating

5

the time within which the party served must appear to defend.”). The Court may not attempt to

6

determine the rights of persons not before it. See Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229,

7

234-35 (1916); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 1983).

8

III.

9

DISCUSSION

10

Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order to prevent his transfer to non-designated

11

programming facility. (ECF No. 241.) Based on the analysis below, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s

12

motion for a temporary restraining order should be denied.

13

A.

14

As previously stated, Plaintiff seeks an order preventing his transfer to a non-designated

Court Lacks Standing to Issue Temporary Restraining Order

15

programming facility. However, an injunction is only available when the “complaint states a sound

16

basis for equitable relief,” a determination that implicates “case or controversy considerations[.]” City

17

of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. at (citation omitted). In his complaint, the events giving rise to the

18

claims in this action occurred between June and December 2009. Plaintiff alleges Defendants did not

19

provide him adequate treatment for a foot infection and denied him use of a wheelchair. However, the

20

issues raised by Plaintiff in his motion for a temporary restraining order concern a possible transfer to

21

an alleged non-designated facility several years after the allegations in the complaint. That issue is

22

not being litigated in this case. Because the injunctive relief sought—order prohibiting a transfer—

23

would not remedy his claims and has no connection to them, plaintiff has not “demonstrate[d] a case

24

or controversy ... that would justify the equitable relief sought,” depriving the court of jurisdiction.

25

City of Los Angeles, 461 U.S. at 105. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue an order

26

preventing Plaintiff’s transfer.

27

///

28

///
3

Plaintiff’s Motion is Not Ripe and Lack of Irreparable Harm

1

B.

2

“While standing is primarily concerned with who is a proper party to litigate a particular

3

matter, ripeness addresses when litigation may occur.” Lee v. Oregon, 107 F.3d 1382, 1387 (9th Cir.

4

1997). “A claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon ‘contingent future events that may not

5

occur as anticipated, or indeed many not occur at all.’” Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300

6

(1998) (quoting Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568, 580-81 (1985)). “The

7

ripeness doctrine demands that litigants state a claim on which relief can be granted and that litigants’

8

asserted harm is ‘direct and immediate’ rather than speculative or hypothetical.” Hillbloom v. United

9

States, 896 F.2d 426, 430 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing to Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 152

10

(1967)).
Although Plaintiff may have been endorsed for a transfer to a non-designated programming

11
12

facility, whether the recommendation for Plaintiff’s transfer will be approved is unknown at this time.

13

Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is based on events that have not yet happened and may never happen. In addition,

14

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he faces imminent and irreparable harm if transferred to a non-

15

designated programming facility. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is not ripe for judicial intervention, and

16

he has failed to demonstrate irreparable injury. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion should be denied.

17

IV.

18

RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for

19
20

temporary restraining order, filed on July 20, 2020 (ECF No. 241) be DENIED.
This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

21
22

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days

23

after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written objections

24

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

25

Recommendation.” The parties are that failure to file objections within the specified time may result

26

///

27

///

28

///
4

1

in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing

2

Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:

6

July 22, 2020
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5