Jones v. Speidell et al

Filing 79

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 65 Motion for Preliminary Injunction signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 03/12/2021. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHARLES B. JONES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01335-JLT (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(Doc. 65)

R. SPEIDELL, M. STEWART,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

I.

BACKGROUND
This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint for claims of First

19

Amendment retaliation, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 28.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants

20

Speidell and Stewart, former correctional lieutenants at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP), issued

21

a false rules violation report (RVR) against him in retaliation for his filing of an administrative

22

grievance. (Doc. 21.)

23

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “motion for an injunctive relief order and request for

24

maximum fines.” (Doc. 65.) The Court construes the filing as a motion for a preliminary

25

injunction. In his motion, Plaintiff alleges that prison officials at California State Prison, Corcoran

26

(CSP-Corcoran) obstructed his access to the courts by restricting his access to his property during

27

a COVID-19-related quarantine. (See id. at 2-6.) Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an order

28

directing Correctional Captain Brown, Correctional Lieutenant Silva, the warden of CSP-

1

Corcoran, and the director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

2

(CDCR) “to release [his] property so [he] can freely prosecute [his] cases.” (Id. at 2, 7.) Plaintiff

3

also requests that the Court impose fines against the officials for violating his constitutional

4

rights. (Id.)

5

II.

6

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

7

v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a

8

preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to

9

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his

10
11

favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20.
In addition, a “federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction

12

over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the

13

rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983).

14

“[A]n injunction must be narrowly tailored ‘to affect only those persons over which it has power,’

15

… and to remedy only the specific harms shown by the plaintiffs, rather than ‘to enjoin all

16

possible breaches of the law.’” Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004)

17

(quoting Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727, 728 n.1).

18

As an initial matter, the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the individuals

19

against whom Plaintiff seeks an injunction, i.e., Captain Brown, Lieutenant Silva, the warden of

20

CSP-Corcoran, and the secretary of CDCR. In this case, the Court only has personal jurisdiction

21

over the parties, i.e., Plaintiff and Defendants Speidell and Stewart.

22

In addition, the claims in Plaintiff’s motion are unrelated to the claims at issue in this case.

23

As described above, Plaintiff’s operative claims are for First Amendment retaliation, based on his

24

allegation that Defendants issued a false RVR in retaliation for his filing a grievance while at

25

KVSP. (Doc. 28.) Plaintiff’s claims in his motion, on the other hand, are access-to-court claims

26

based on the confiscation of his property during a quarantine at CSP-Corcoran. (Doc. 65.) When a

27

plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have

28

the authority to issue an injunction.” Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810
2

1

F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015). “Because the Court only has jurisdiction over the operative claims

2

in the [c]omplaint,” which do not include the claims in Plaintiff’s motion, the Court lacks the

3

authority to provide the injunctive relief that Plaintiff seeks. Smith v. Rios, No. 1:10-cv-1554-

4

AWI-MJS, 2010 WL 4603959, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (citations omitted).

5

III.

ORDER
Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.1

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

9

March 12, 2021

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff will have ample time to prepare a pretrial statement as directed by the third scheduling
order (Doc. 76) before the telephonic trial confirmation hearing on November 29, 2021.

3