Huskey v. Lopez, et al.
Filing
11
ORDER DISCHARGING Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order, Temporary Restraining Order, and Preliminary Injunction 3 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/8/15. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KENNETH R. HUSKEY,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
v.
LOPEZ, et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00138-JLT (PC)
ORDER DISERGARDING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER,
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, AND
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(Doc. 3)
Defendants.
16
17
In this action, Plaintiff has stated claims against: (1) Defendant Lopez for pushing him
18
down a flight of stairs in violation of the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments; and (2) Defendants
19
King, Walters, and Carter for having knowledge of the risks Defendant Lopez pose to Plaintiff
20
and failing to protect him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (See Docs. 1, 8, 9, 10.)
21
Concurrent with the filing of this action, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for protective order,
22
temporary restraining order, and for preliminary injunction "to prevent Defendant Jose Lopez's
23
physical abuse of plaintiff, by his physical attack on and intimidation of plaintiff." (Doc. 3.)
24
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are bound, in considering a request for
25
preliminary injunctive relief, by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it an
26
actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge
27
Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471
28
(1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear
1
1
the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. ยง
2
3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the "relief
3
[sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the
4
Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal
5
right."
6
While Plaintiff specifies that he is fearful of retaliation and further attack at the hands of
7
Defendant Lopez, Plaintiff does not identify the relief he desires in his motion, in particular,
8
Plaintiff does not specify what relief he desires to keep him safe from Defendant Lopez. Thus,
9
the motion is not "narrowly drawn" and cannot be evaluated as to whether it is the least intrusive
10
11
means necessary to correct the violation(s) Plaintiff complains of and is fearful will recur.
Further, A[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.@
12
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted).
13
AA plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the
14
merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the
15
balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.@ Id. at 374
16
(citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is
17
entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). Plaintiff has not made this
18
showing. Moreover, a response to a request for preliminary injunction based upon claims such as
19
those made by Plaintiff, requires a response from Defendants is crucical so that the Court can
20
properly evaluate whether the relief sought by Plaintiff is narrowly tailored to achieve the
21
objective.
22
Finally, though the Court has ordered service of the summons and complaint, the
23
Defendants have not appeared in this action. AA federal court may issue an injunction if it has
24
personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not
25
attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States
26
Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). Thus, Plaintiff=s motion cannot be
27
properly addressed until Defendant Lopez and/or his supervisors have appeared and are parties to
28
this action.
2
1
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for a general "protective order, temporary restraining
2
order, and for preliminary injunction," filed on February 2, 2015 (Doc. 3), is HEREBY
3
DISREGARDED.
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 8, 2015
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?