Martin v. Fernandez et al
Filing
20
ORDER CONSTRUING 19 MOTION REQUESTING COURT ORDER FORCING PRISON OFFICIALS TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF PHYSICAL ACCESS TO THE LAW LIBRARY AS A MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; AND DENYING 19 PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/19/2013. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BRIAN MARTIN,
12
13
CASE NO. 1:13-cv-00754-JLT (PC)
ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION REQUESTING COURT ORDER
FORCING PRISON OFFICIALS TO
ALLOW PLAINTIFF PHYSICAL
ACCESS TO THE LAW LIBRARY AS A
MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
(Doc. 19)
Plaintiff,
v.
14
ANTHONY FERNANDEZ, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
(Doc. 19)
17
18
19
Plaintiff Brian Martin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
20
pauperis with a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff consented to proceed before
21
the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on June 13, 2012. (Doc. 6). No other parties have appeared in
22
this action.
23
Plaintiff requests that the Court require prison officials to permit Plaintiff physical access
24
to the law library with each order issued in this matter. (Doc. 19 at 2). Plaintiff reports that this
25
would permit him to meet Court deadlines and avoid further requests for extension of time to
26
submit his filings. Id. at 2. The Court construes the present motion as a preliminary injunction.
27
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on
28
the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the
1
1
balance of the equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v.
2
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted).
3
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Id. at 24 (citation
4
omitted). It may be awarded only upon a clear showing that the movant is entitled to relief. Id.
5
A stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another. Alliance for the
6
Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-35 (9th Cir. 2011) (the sliding scale approach to
7
balancing the elements for a preliminary injunction survives Winters). However, while the
8
elements may be balanced, all four factors must be present in order to warrant injunctive relief.
9
Id. at 1052-53.
“A
10
Plaintiff has named several individual defendants in his civil rights complaint; however,
11
none of those defendants are the persons he seeks to enjoin here. Compare (Doc. 9) with (Doc.
12
19). Additionally, the U.S. Marshals have not yet served any defendants in this matter. As a
13
result, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the named defendants and the additional persons
14
set forth in Plaintiff’s Petition for Injunction. “A federal court may [only] issue an injunction if it
15
has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not
16
attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States
17
18
19
20
Immigration Service, 753 F.3d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added).
Furthermore, Plaintiff has made no showing of irreparable injury, rather he speculates that
he will sustain prejudice in the future. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction is
DENIED.
ORDER
21
22
23
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction (Doc. 19) is
DENIED.
24
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
August 19, 2013
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28
2
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?