Jones v. Sherman et al

Filing 15

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 8 Plaintiff's Request for Emergency Injunctive Relief be DENIED signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 6/20/2017. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

WILLIAM JONES,

13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
STUART SHERMAN, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01378-DAD-BAM (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED
(ECF No. 8)

19

Plaintiff William Jones (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

20

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

21

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

22

On October 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this action. (ECF No. 8.) In that complaint,

23

Plaintiff requests emergency and immediate injunctive relief; specifically, an order providing

24

treatment and support groups for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) for all veterans at SATF.

25

The Court construes the request as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief.

26

I.

27

Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an immediate order to have SATF offer treatment and

28

Request for Emergency Injunctive Relief

support groups for PTSD for all veterans at SATF. Plaintiff asserts that his condition is worsening by
1

1

the day. Plaintiff further asserts that the longer treatment is not made available, the more Plaintiff

2

becomes a threat to himself and to others, in and out of prison. Plaintiff claims that the treatment he is

3

receiving is insufficient, and although his medication helps manage his symptoms, it does “little if

4

anything to actually help to improve [his] disorder.” (ECF No. 8, p. 4.)

5

A.

Standard

6

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of equities

7

so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure the positions

8

until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390,

9

395, 101 S. Ct. 1830, 68 L. Ed. 2d 175 (1981). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must

10

establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the

11

absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in

12

the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365,

13

374, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008). “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy,

14

one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of

15

persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972, 117 S. Ct. 1865, 138 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1997)

16

(quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

17

“A federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties

18

and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not

19

before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). The

20

pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general. Summers

21

v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 491–93, 129 S. Ct. 1142, 173 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2009); Mayfield v.

22

United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in

23

this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at

24

491–93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

25
26

B.

Analysis

In this instance, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his

27

claim. In an order issued concurrently with these findings and recommendations, the Court has

28

screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it does not state any cognizable claims. His complaint
2

1

was dismissed with leave to amend, and therefore his action does not proceed on any viable complaint

2

at this time.
Plaintiff also has not demonstrated that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

3
4

preliminary relief. He alleges that he is receiving some treatment which helps his symptoms.

5

Plaintiff’s vague assertions that he is becoming a threat to himself and others are too conclusory to

6

determine whether a risk of severe harm exists in the absence of immediate injunctive relief.
Furthermore, “a court has no power to adjudicate a personal claim or obligation unless it has

7
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). As

10

noted above, the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. No defendant has

11

been ordered served and no defendant has yet made an appearance. At this juncture, the Court lacks

12

personal jurisdiction over the defendants and it cannot issue an order requiring them to take any

13

action. Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at 110; Ross, 504 F.3d at 1138-39. Nor does the Court have

14

jurisdiction over CDCR or SATF prison officials generally merely based on the pendency of this

15

action.

16

II.

17

For the reasons explained above, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s request

18

Conclusion and Recommendation

for emergency injunctive relief (ECF No. 8), be denied.
These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

19
20

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

21

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections

22

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

23

Recommendation.”

24

///

25

///

26

///

27
28
3

1

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the

2

waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

3

772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

June 20, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4