Harris v. Sexton, et al.

Filing 9

ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to Randomly Assign a District Judge to This Action - CASE ASSIGNED to District Judge Dale A. Drozd and Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. New Case No. 1:18-cv-00080 DAD SAB (PC); FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Injunctions be Denied 1 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 3/15/2018: 21-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EARNEST S. HARRIS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
SEXON, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:18-cv-00080-SAB (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO
THIS ACTION
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION BE DENIED
[ECF No. 1]

Plaintiff Earnest S. Harris is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In his complaint filed on January 18, 2018, Plaintiff requests the Court issue an emergency
injunction. For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s request must be denied.

21

I.

22

DISCUSSION

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

395 (1981). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on

27

the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the

28

balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural
1

1

Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted). An injunction may only

2

be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted)

3

(emphasis added). The analysis for a temporary restraining order is substantially identical to that for a

4

preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush and Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832,

5

839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001).

6

In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary injunction

7

must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the Court finds requires

8

preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm. 18 U.S.C. §

9

3626(a)(2). The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in

10

general. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States,

11

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

12

to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491–93;

13

Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

14

Plaintiff seeks an emergency injunction to stop all security checks. In this instance, Plaintiff

15

has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. By way of separate order,

16

the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint, found that it did not state any cognizable claim, and granted

17

Plaintiff leave to amend. Therefore, this action does not proceed on any viable complaint at this time.

18

Further, no Defendant has been ordered served and no Defendant has yet made an appearance.

19

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

20

over the person of the defendant.” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110,

21

89 S.Ct. 1562 (1969); S.E.C. v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2007). At this juncture, the

22

Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and it cannot issue an order requiring them to

23

take any action. Nor does the Court have jurisdiction over CDCR or prison officials generally merely

24

based on the pendency of this action. Thus, at this early stage in the litigation and based on the limited

25

record, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1

II.

2

RECOMMENDATION

3

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for an

4

emergency injunction be denied.
This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

5
6

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21)

7

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

8

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

9

Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

10

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

11

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

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:

15

March 15, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3