Robledo v. Castillo et al

Filing 13

ORDER Denying Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction Without Prejudice (ECF No. 6 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/4/2014. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADAM ROBLEDO, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. D. CASTILLO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:14-cv-00276-BAM (PC) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE (ECF No. 6) Plaintiff Adam Robledo (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on 20 February 28, 2014. Plaintiff’s complaint concerns allegations of excessive force, denial of medical 21 care, and deliberate indifference to his health and safety. 22 On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “(T.R.O.) Order to Show Cause for 23 Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order.” (ECF No. 6, p. 1.) The document appears 24 to be a proposed order to show cause and injunction against Defendants for the Court’s signature. 25 (ECF No. 6, p. 6.) Insofar as Plaintiff’s document is construed as a motion for temporary restraining 26 order and preliminary injunction, the motion is deficient and shall be denied without prejudice to 27 refiling. 28 1 1 The analysis for a temporary restraining order is substantially identical to that for a preliminary 2 injunction, Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush and Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th 3 Cir. 2001), and “[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” 4 Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation 5 omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on 6 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 7 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations 8 omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to 9 relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted). 10 Here, Plaintiff’s proposed order does not establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits or 11 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, that the balance of equities tips in his favor or 12 that an injunction is in the public interest. Rather, the proposed order merely includes a list of things 13 that defendants should be restrained from doing, including, among other things, stalking, harassing, 14 gender profiling, terrorizing, stealing, destroying property, staging violence and incidents, and 15 falsifying reports. (ECF No. 66, pp. 2-3.) 16 Additionally, “a court has no power to adjudicate a personal claim or obligation unless it has 17 jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 18 U.S. 100, 110, 89 S.Ct. 1562 (1969); S.E.C. v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2007). In this 19 case, the Court has not screened Plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether it states a cognizable 20 claim, no defendant has been ordered served and no defendant has yet made an appearance. At this 21 juncture, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants and it cannot issue an order 22 requiring them to take any action. Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at 110; Ross, 504 F.3d at 1138-39. 23 The Court will screen Plaintiff’s complaint in due course. 24 For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary 25 injunction, filed on March 13, 2014, is DENIED without prejudice. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 28 Dated: /s/ Barbara September 4, 2014 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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?