King v. Villegas et al

Filing 101

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that Plaintiff's 99 Motion for Injunctive Relief be Denied signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 9/23/2021. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due within Fourteen Days. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE
DENIED

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 1:17-cv-00676-AWI-EPG (PC)

JERRY LEE KING,

v.
R. VILLEGAS and P. CRUZ,

15

(ECF No. 99)

Defendants.

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS

16
17
18

Jerry King (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with

19

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is proceeding on Plaintiff’s

20

claims for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendants R. Villegas

21

and P. Cruz. (ECF Nos. 14 & 20). This case was stayed on October 25, 2019, pending resolution

22

of criminal charges. (ECF No. 89).
On September 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed what the Court construes as a motion for injunctive

23
24

relief. (ECF No. 99). Because this case is stayed, and because Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive

25

relief appears to have no relationship to the claims proceeding in this case, the Court will

26

recommend that it be denied.

27

\\\

28

\\\
1

1

I.

2

SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
Plaintiff alleges that his First Amendment rights were violated. Plaintiff alleges that he

3

was working as a 4B Receiving and Release clerk. Officer Wilburn was hired, and she looked up

4

Plaintiff’s file. Officer Wilburn saw that Plaintiff had a staff assault, questioned him about it, and

5

later fired him. Plaintiff filed a grievance regarding Officer Wilburn’s conduct. When Officer

6

Wilburn found out that Plaintiff filed a grievance against her, she retaliated against Plaintiff. She

7

stated that if Plaintiff wants to push paper, then she will too. When Plaintiff attempted to get a

8

job in the kitchen, Plaintiff was told that he is a good worker but that he would not be hired

9

because Officer Wilburn called and asked the officer not to give Plaintiff the job as a personal

10

favor to her. She also told Plaintiff that if Plaintiff ever leaves or is transferred, she will make

11

sure that Plaintiff’s property gets lost or misplaced.

12
13

Plaintiff asks the Court to stop this misuse of power.
II.

14

LEGAL STANDARDS
A federal district court may issue emergency injunctive relief only if it has personal

15

jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. See Murphy Bros.,

16

Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that one “becomes a party

17

officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of summons or other

18

authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the party served must appear to

19

defend.”). The court may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before it. See, e.g.,

20

Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 234-35 (1916); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d

21

719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979) (injunctive

22

relief must be “narrowly tailored to give only the relief to which plaintiffs are entitled”). Under

23

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), an injunction binds only “the parties to the action,”

24

their “officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” and “other persons who are in active

25

concert or participation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(A)-(C). “When a plaintiff seeks injunctive

26

relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an

27

injunction.” Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir.

28

2015).
2

1

Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the

2

Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find that the “relief [sought] is

3

narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right,

4

and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right.”
On the merits, “[a] plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is

5
6

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

7

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

8

public interest.” Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2736-37 (2015) (quoting Winter v. Natural

9

Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). “Under Winter, plaintiffs must establish that

10

irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliance

11

for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011).

12

III.

13

ANALYSIS
The Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be denied. First,

14

this case is currently stayed. Second, this case is only proceeding on Plaintiff’s claims for

15

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendants R. Villegas and P. Cruz.

16

Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief based on a First Amendment retaliation claim against

17

Officer Wilburn has no relationship to these claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff is not entitled to

18

injunctive relief in this case based on the allegations in his motion. Pac. Radiation Oncology, 810

19

F.3d at 633 (“When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint,

20

the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.”).

21

Additionally, there is nothing in Plaintiff’s motion suggesting that defendant Villegas or

22

defendant Cruz has the authority to provide the injunctive relief Plaintiff is requesting. And, an

23

injunction binds only “the parties to the action,” their “officers, agents, servants, employees, and

24

attorneys,” and “other persons who are in active concert or participation.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

25

65(d)(2)(A)-(C). Given this, and that Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief based on a claim not

26

pled in the complaint, even if Plaintiff is entitled to the relief he is seeking, this is not the

27

appropriate case to seek such relief.

28

Therefore, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be
3

1

denied.

2

The Court notes that if Plaintiff believes that Officer Wilburn is violating his First

3

Amendment rights, he may file a separate lawsuit against Officer Wilburn.

4

IV.

5

RECOMMENDATIONS
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that

6

Plaintiff’s filing (ECF No. 99), which the Court construes as a motion for injunctive relief, be

7

DENIED.

8
9

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen

10

(14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

11

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

12

Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be served and

13

filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure

14

to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.

15

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d

16

1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 23, 2021

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4