Young v. Biter et al

Filing 19

ORDER DENYING 7 Motion for Injunctive Relief (Ex Parte) signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/6/2015. (Jessen, A)

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

Plaintiff,
v.
M. D. BITER, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01942-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF (EX PARTE)
(ECF No. 7)

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

On January 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief seeking an order for Passover

23

accommodations for Messianic Jewish participants on A-Yard at Kern Valley State Prison for April 3-

24

April 11, 2015. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff asserts that a Passover event was approved for April 2014, but

25

the event was never provided.

26
27

On March 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for emergency/urgent injunctive relief seeking an
order for a Passover event on April 22 or April 29, 2015. Plaintiff provided Defendants C. Wegman

28
1

1

and Maurice Howard with copies of the Passover 2015 Event Package. Plaintiff requested that the

2

Court issue an order providing that the Passover 2015 Event Package be granted. (ECF No. 17.)
On April 1, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s March 25, 2015 request for emergency/urgent

3
4

injunctive relief. (ECF No. 18.)
For the same reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, filed on January 5, 2015, shall be

5
6

denied. “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v.

7

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted).

8

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits,

9

that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of

10

equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted).

11

An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at

12

22 (citation omitted).
In this instance, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits. A

13
14

preliminary review of Plaintiff’s complaint, which has not been fully screened, indicates that it does

15

not comply with the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and includes multiple

16

claims in violation of the joinder rules of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18. Additionally, Plaintiff’s

17

complaint relates to past events, not the 2015 Passover Event. Further, Plaintiff’s moving papers

18

contain no argument or demonstration that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims.
Plaintiff also cannot demonstrate that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

19
20

preliminary relief. Plaintiff admits that the 2014 Passover Event Package was approved. There is no

21

indication that his 2015 Passover Event Package for April 3-April 11, 2015 would not be approved.

22

Moreover, a portion of Plaintiff’s request for Passover events between April 3 and April 6 is now

23

moot.

24

Additionally, “a court has no power to adjudicate a personal claim or obligation unless it has

25

jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395

26

U.S. 100, 110, 89 S.Ct. 1562 (1969); S.E.C. v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2007). As

27

noted above, the Court has not screened Plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether it states a

28

cognizable claim. Moreover, no defendant has been ordered served and no defendant has yet made an
2

1

appearance. At this juncture, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants and it cannot

2

issue an order requiring them to take any action. Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at 110; Ross, 504 F.3d

3

at 1138-39. The Court will screen Plaintiff’s complaint in due course.

4
5

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, filed on January 5, 2015, is HEREBY
DENIED.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 6, 2015

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3