Renteria v. Matharu et al

Filing 12

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending That Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief be Denied 4 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/7/2018: 14-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LUIS RENTERIA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
KABIR MATHARU, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

1:185-cv-00497-LJO-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED
(ECF No. 4.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 14
DAYS

BACKGROUND

18

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

19

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing

20

this action on April 12, 2018, together with a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. (ECF

21

Nos. 1, 3.)

22

II.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

23

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

24

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

25

the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v.

26

Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who

27

“demonstrates either (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable

28

harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.”
1

1

Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either

2

approach the plaintiff “must demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. Also,

3

an injunction should not issue if the plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the merits.” Id.

4

At a bare minimum, the plaintiff “must demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or

5

questions serious enough to require litigation.” Id.

6

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

7

injunction must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the

8

court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the

9

harm. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

10

Discussion

11

Plaintiff requests an order requiring defendants to refrain from denying him medication

12

and retaliating against him. Plaintiff filed the Complaint for this action on April 12, 2018, and

13

the Complaint awaits the court’s screening. The Court therefore cannot opine that Plaintiff is

14

likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Furthermore, no defendants have yet appeared in

15

this action, and the court does yet not have jurisdiction to order injunctive relief which would

16

require directing individuals not before the Court to take action. Zepeda v. United States

17

Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may

18

issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction

19

over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.”).
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied at this juncture. Plaintiff is not precluded

20
21

from renewing the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

22

III.

23
24

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff=s motion

for preliminary injunction, filed on April 12, 2018, be DENIED, without prejudice.

25

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

26

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

27

(14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file

28

written objections with the court.

Such a document should be captioned “Objections to
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

(9th Cir. 1991)).

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 7, 2018

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3