Tracye B. Washington v. Stark et al

Filing 10

ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Randomly Assign a District Judge to This Action (Case number is now 1:18-cv-564-LJO-SAB.); FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order be Denied, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 5/15/18. Objections to F&R Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TRACYE BENARD WASHINGTON,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

E. STARK, et.al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Case No.: 1:18-cv-00564-SAB (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO
THIS ACTION
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER BE
DENIED
[ECF No. 7]

Plaintiff Tracye Benard Washington is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’ motion for a temporary restraining order, filed May 9,

20
21

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2018.

22

I.

23

DISCUSSION

24

In his motion, Plaintiff seeks an order “enjoining all Defendants, their co-workers, successor,

25

prox[ies] and/or prisoners under their custody and care at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) with or

26

without known security threat group (STG) nexus as defined in California Code of Regulations (CCR)

27

Title 15 section 3023(a), from threatening, intimidating, harassing or physically harming Plaintiff.”

28

(Mot. at 1, ECF No. 7.)
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

395, 101 S. Ct. 1830, 68 L. Ed. 2d 175 (1981). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must

5

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

6

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

7

the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365,

8

374, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008). “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy,

9

one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of

10

persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972, 117 S. Ct. 1865, 138 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1997)

11

(quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

12

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court must

13

have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.

14

Ct. 1660, 75 L. Ed. 2d 675 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of

15

Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S. Ct. 752, 70 L. Ed. 2d 700 (1982). If the court does

16

not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Lyons,

17

461 U.S. at 102. Thus, “[a] federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction

18

over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the

19

rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727

20

(9th Cir. 1985).

21

The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in

22

general. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 491–93, 129 S. Ct. 1142, 173 L. Ed. 2d 1

23

(2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is

24

limited to the parties in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding.

25

Summers, 555 U.S. at 491–93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

26

Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks in this motion. In this

27

matter, by way of separate order, the Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that he has

28

stated a cognizable claim for excessive force against Defendants Rocha and Hicks only. No Defendant
2

1

has been ordered served, and no Defendant has yet made an appearance. Thus, the Court at this time

2

lacks personal jurisdiction over any prison officials at KVSP.

3

acknowledges that he is seeking relief against individuals who are not named as Defendants in this

4

action. Furthermore, at this early stage in the litigation and based on the limited record, the Court cannot

5

find that Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

6

motion for a temporary restraining order should be denied.

7

II.

8

In addition, Plaintiff names and

RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

9
10

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order be denied; and

11

2.

The Clerk of Court is directed to randomly assign a District Judge to this action.

12

This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

13

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated:

22

May 15, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
3