Cranford v. Smith

Filing 18

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 17 Motion for TRO signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 03/19/2014. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:13-cv-01555-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER
(Doc. 17.)

EBONY SMITH,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff") is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights

20

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on September 26, 2013. (Doc.

21

1.) On November 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 9.)

22

On October 7, 2013, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action

23

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 4.)

24

Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of

25

California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as

26

reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

27
28

On March 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, which is
now before the court. (Doc. 17.)
1

1

II.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

2

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of

3

equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure

4

the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v.

5

Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who

6

Ademonstrates either (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable

7

harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.@

8

Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either

9

approach the plaintiff Amust demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.@ Id. Also, an

10

injunction should not issue if the plaintiff Ashows no chance of success on the merits.@ Id. At a

11

bare minimum, the plaintiff Amust demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or

12

questions serious enough to require litigation.@ Id.

13

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court

14

must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95,

15

102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation

16

of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of

17

Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or

18

controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Thus, A[a] federal

19

court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject

20

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

21

before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir.

22

1985).

23

Discussion

24

Plaintiff seeks a court order prohibiting defendant Ebony Smith from approaching him

25

nearer than 50,000 feet, and preventing officials from changing Plaintiff’s housing assignment.

26

In the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that defendants Ebony Smith,

27

Janessia Seats, and Audrey King failed to arrange a dental appointment for Plaintiff to seek

28
2

1

relief from painful dentures.

2

including a court order revoking the defendants’ licenses.

3

Plaintiff requests monetary damages and injunctive relief,

The temporary restraining order requested by Plaintiff would not remedy any of the

4

claims upon which this action proceeds.

5

protecting him from present and future actions by defendant Smith. Because such an order

6

would not remedy any of the claims upon which this action proceeds, the court lacks

7

jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff=s motion must be denied.

Plaintiff requests a temporary restraining order

8

Moreover, A[A] federal court may [only] issue an injunction if it has personal

9

jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to

10

determine the rights of persons not before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration

11

Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Because none of the defendants

12

have appeared in this action, the Court does not have jurisdiction to issue an order prohibiting

13

any of them from acting against Plaintiff.

14

III.

15
16

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion for a

temporary restraining order, filed on March 17, 2014, is DENIED.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 19, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
3