Torres v. Waddel

Filing 13

ORDER DENYING Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Without Prejudice 4 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/6/14: Motion is DENIED without prejudice. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GUSTAVO TORRES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 WADDEL, et al., 15 16 17 18 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:14-cv-01217-BAM (PC) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE (ECF No. 4) Plaintiff Gustavo Torres (“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 August 4, 2014. Plaintiff’s complaint concerns allegations of deliberate indifference to his health and 21 safety. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 8.) 22 On August 4, 2014, Plaintiff also filed a document entitled “Order to Show Cause for An 23 Preliminary injunction & A Temporary Restrain[in]g Order” (ECF No. 4, p. 1.) The document 24 appears to be a proposed order to show cause and injunction against Defendant Waddel and other 25 unnamed defendants for the Court’s signature. (ECF No. 4, p. 2.) Insofar as Plaintiff’s document is 26 construed as a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, the motion is 27 deficient and shall be denied without prejudice to 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 states that Defendants 13 should be restrained from “[c]ausing more harm at the hands of cellmates.” (ECF No. 2, p. 2.) 14 Additionally, “a court has no power to adjudicate a personal claim or obligation unless it has 15 jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 16 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 17 case, the Court has not screened Plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether it states a cognizable 18 claim, no defendant has been ordered served and no defendant has yet made an appearance. At this 19 juncture, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants and it cannot issue an order 20 requiring them to take any action. Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at 110; Ross, 504 F.3d at 1138-39. 21 Plaintiff has requested leave to amend and the Court will screen any amended complaint in due course 22 after its filing. 23 For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary 24 injunction, filed on August 4, 2014, is DENIED without prejudice. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 Dated: /s/ Barbara October 6, 2014 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 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?