Frank Wells v. Gonzales

Filing 30

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending that Plaintiff's 27 Motion for Preliminary Injunction be Denied, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 4/4/19. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R Due Within Twenty-One Days. (Gonzalez, R)

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 A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION BE DENIED

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 1:17-cv-01240-DAD-EPG (PC)

FRANK WELLS,

v.
ROSA GONZALES,

15

(ECF NO. 27)

Defendant.

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
TWENTY-ONE DAYS

16
17

Frank Wells (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

18
19

this civil rights action. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s original complaint (ECF No. 1),

20

on Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Rosa Gonzales for violation of Plaintiff’s First

21

Amendment right to free exercise of religion, violation of the Religious Land Use and

22

Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment,

23

unreasonable searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and violation of California’s Bane

24

Act. (ECF No. 10).
On March 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction (“the Motion”).

25
26

(ECF No. 27).
For the reasons described below, the Court recommends denying the Motion.

27
28

///
1

1

I.

THE MOTION

2

Plaintiff alleges that on March 22, 2019, prison officials threatened to transfer him.

3

Plaintiff informed prison officials that he has ongoing litigation, and that a transfer would “greatly

4

hinder” him from prosecuting his case.

5
6

Plaintiff asks for an injunction prohibiting officials from carrying out a retaliatory transfer.
II.

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

2015).

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right.”

26

On the merits, “[a] plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is

27

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

28

preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

III.

6

ANALYSIS
The Court will recommend that the Motion be denied. To begin, Plaintiff does not appear

7

to be alleging that the defendant in this case had anything to do with the transfer (Plaintiff does

8

not name the officials who allegedly decided to transfer him, or the officials that he informed

9

about his ongoing litigation). Plaintiff also does not allege that the defendant in this case has

10

authority to prevent the transfer.

11
12

Additionally, Plaintiff has provided no evidence that the alleged transfer is retaliatory in
nature. Instead, Plaintiff alleges, in a conclusory fashion, that the transfer is retaliatory.

13

Finally, Plaintiff has failed to establish that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm from a

14

transfer. While Plaintiff alleges that the transfer will “greatly hinder” his ability to prosecute this

15

case, Plaintiff does not explain (or present evidence to show) how the transfer will “greatly

16

hinder” his ability to prosecute this case. The Court notes that if there is a particular deadline

17

Plaintiff is unable to meet because of a transfer, Plaintiff may file a motion for an extension of

18

that deadline.

19

IV.

20
21
22

RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s

motion for a preliminary injunction be DENIED.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge

23

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file

28

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v.
3

1

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394

2

(9th Cir. 1991)).

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 4, 2019

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4