Bullard v. St. Andra et al
Filing
54
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Deny Plaintiff's 53 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Objections, if any, Due within Fourteen Days signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 10/19/2018. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill.(Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
EFREN DANIELLE BULLARD,
11
Case No. 1:17-cv-00328-LJO-JDP
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
BENSON, et al.,
14
Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
ECF No. 53
15
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS
16
17
18
I.
19
RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiff Efren Danielle Bullard is proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action
20
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 15, 2018, plaintiff filed a proposed order1
21
requiring defendants Benson, Jane Doe, and David to show cause why a preliminary injunction
22
should not be issued in this case to enjoin:
23
the defendants, their successors in office, agents and employees and
all other persons acting in concert and participation with them,
from, 1. From harassing plaintiff as alle[]ged in the complaint. 2.
From sexually assaulting plaintiff. 3. Retaliating against plaintiff
for using the gre[i]vance system. 4. Attempting to have
24
25
26
Plaintiff states that he filed “supporting affidavits of plaintiff and [a] memorandum of law” with
his proposed order, ECF. No. 53, at 1, but these documents were not received by the clerk of
court.
1
1
27
28
1
inmates/third parties, actors harassing or otherwise retaliating
against plaintiff for using the gre[i]vance system. . . . [5.] [C]oming
within 100 yards of plaintiff.
2
3
4
ECF. No. 53.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
5
A federal district court may issue injunctive relief only if the court has personal
6
jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. See Murphy Bros.,
7
Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that one “becomes a party
8
officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of summons or other
9
authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the party served must appear to
10
defend”). The court may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before it. See
11
Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 234-35 (1916); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d
12
719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979) (requiring
13
injunctive relief to be “narrowly tailored to give only the relief to which plaintiffs are entitled”).
14
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), an injunction binds only “the parties to the
15
action,” their “officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” and “other persons who are
16
in active concert or participation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(A)-(C). Requests for prospective
17
relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act,
18
which requires that the court find that the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further
19
than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right, and is the least intrusive means
20
necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right.”
21
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed
22
on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that
23
the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Glossip
24
v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2736-37 (2015) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
25
555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). “[P]laintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just
26
possible, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell,
27
632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). In addition to establishing irreparable harm, the injunctive
28
relief sought must be related to the claims brought in the complaint. See Pac. Radiation
2
1
Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015) (“When a plaintiff
2
seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the
3
authority to issue an injunction.”).
4
5
III.
ANALYSIS
As a preliminary matter, plaintiff frames his motion as a proposed order to show cause
6
why a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order should not issue. The court
7
construes plaintiff’s filing as a request for a preliminary injunction under Federal Rule of Civil
8
Procedure 65.
9
The court will recommend that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be denied because
10
plaintiff has not established any of the four factors outlined in Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726,
11
2736-37 (2015). Plaintiff’s proposed order, which is a single page in length, does not provide
12
any justifications for why a preliminary injunction should issue. In it, plaintiff states that he
13
filed “supporting affidavits of plaintiff and [a] memorandum of law,” ECF. No. 53, at 1, but
14
these documents were not received by the clerk of court. Should plaintiff wish to refile his
15
motion for a preliminary injunction with the proper supporting documents, he may do so.
16
17
18
IV.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, ECF
No. 53, be DENIED.
19
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the U.S. district judge
20
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14)
21
days of service of these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
22
with the court. If plaintiff files such objections, he should do so in a document captioned
23
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that
24
failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.
25
See Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923
26
F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
1
2
3
Dated:
October 19, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?