Young v. Biter et al
Filing
15
ORDER denying 2 MOTION for Emergency Injunctive Relief signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/4/2015. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
HOWARD ALLEN YOUNG,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Plaintiff,
v.
M. D. BITER, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:14-cv-01942-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EMERGENCY
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(ECF No. 2)
Plaintiff Howard Allen Young (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil
19
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on December 5, 2014.
20
Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 6.) On
21
February 17, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
22
In conjunction with his complaint, on December 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for
23
emergency injunctive relief requesting that the Court order defendants to provide Plaintiff with all
24
accommodations for the Hanukkah celebration from December 17, 2014, through December 24, 2014,
25
including kosher food and access to the A-Yard chapel. (ECF No. 2, p. 2.)
26
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v.
27
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted).
28
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits,
1
1
that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of
2
equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted).
3
An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at
4
22 (citation omitted).
5
6
7
In this instance, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is moot. The Hanukkah celebration
contemplated in December 2014 by Plaintiff has now passed.
Additionally, “a court has no power to adjudicate a personal claim or obligation unless it has
8
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395
9
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
10
case, the Court has not screened Plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether it states a cognizable
11
claim, no defendant has been ordered served and no defendant has yet made an appearance. At this
12
juncture, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants and it cannot issue an order
13
requiring them to take any action. Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at 110; Ross, 504 F.3d at 1138-39.
14
Plaintiff will screen Plaintiff’s complaint in due course.
15
16
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for emergency injunctive relief, filed on December 5,
2014, is HEREBY DENIED.
17
18
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
March 4, 2015
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?