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)
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?