Dickson v. Gomez et al

Filing 13

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that Plaintiff's 10 11 12 Motions for Preliminary Injunction Relief be Denied signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/10/2017. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd. Objections to F&R due by 10/27/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHRISTOPHER DICKSON,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

vs.
G. GOMEZ, et al.,

11
Defendants.
12
13

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

1:17-cv-00294-DAD-BAM (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
SEEKING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(ECF Nos. 10, 11, 12)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Christopher Dickson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

14

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United

15

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

16

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions requesting preliminary injunctive

17

relief, filed on July 26, 2017, August 7, 2017, and August 30, 2017. (ECF Nos. 10, 11, 12).

18

I.

Motions for Preliminary Injunction

19

A.

20

“The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to

Legal Standard

21

demonstrate ‘that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm

22

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

23

injunction is in the public interest.’” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir.

24

2009) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)); see also Ctr.

25

for Food Safety v. Vilsack, 636 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2011) (“After Winter, ‘plaintiffs must

26

establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in order to obtain a preliminary

27

injunction.”); Am. Trucking Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir.

28

2009). The Ninth Circuit has also held that “[a] preliminary injunction is appropriate when a

1

1

plaintiff demonstrates . . . that serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance

2

of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor.” Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d

3

1127, 1134–35 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 97 (9th Cir.

4

2008) (en banc). The party seeking the injunction bears the burden of proving these elements.

5

Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1201 (9th Cir. 2009). Finally, an injunction is “an

6

extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled

7

to such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22.

8
9

In addition, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) “establishes standards for the
entry and termination of prospective relief in civil actions challenging conditions at prison

10

facilities.” Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327, 333 (2000). Under the PLRA, a court “shall not grant

11

or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn,

12

extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least

13

intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. §

14

3626(a)(1)(A). The court must “give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or

15

the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the preliminary relief.” 18 U.S.C. §

16

3626(a)(2).

17

B.

Analysis

18

Plaintiff in this case is currently housed at the California Correctional Institution (“CCI”)

19

in Tehachapi, California. Each of the named Defendants in this action are correctional officers

20

who are employed at the Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP), in Delano, California, where the

21

alleged events at issue in this case took place. (ECF No. 1.)

22

In his motion, Plaintiff alleges that he is experiencing harassment and retaliation at CCI,

23

including that he is not receiving proper medical care, he is being taunted, and that his food and

24

medication are sometimes placed out of his reach in an effort to harass him.

25

“[A] court has no power to adjudicate a personal claim or obligation unless it has

26

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

27

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

28

2007). Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened. No defendant has been ordered served

2

1

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

2

jurisdiction over any prison official, and it cannot issue an order requiring them to take any

3

action.
More importantly, Plaintiff seeks preliminary injunctive relief against staff at CCI, but his

4
5

complaint concerns past events at KVSP, where he was formerly housed. His claims in this

6

action are not related to the request for injunctive relief. The Court would not have jurisdiction

7

over CDCR or CCI prison officials generally merely based on the pendency of this action.

8

II.

9
10

Conclusion and Recommendations
For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions for

preliminary injunction relief (ECF Nos. 10, 11, 12) be DENIED.

11

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

12

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within

13

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may

14

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to

15

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

16

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the

17

magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir.

18

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

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

October 10, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

3