(PC) Hammler v. Kernan et al
Filing
15
ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to Randomly Assign District Judge to Action - CASE ASSIGNED to District Judge Dale A. Drozd and Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. New Case No. 1:19-cv-00497 DAD SAB (PC); FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION Regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 10 signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 4/24/2019: 14-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ALLEN HAMMLER,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,
15
Defendants.
Case No. 1:19-cv-00497-SAB (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO
ACTION
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16
(ECF No. 10)
17
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
18
19
Plaintiff Allen Hammler is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
20
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant
21
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento
22
Division. (ECF No. 1.) On April 17, 2019, the instant action was transferred to this Court. (ECF
23
No. 12.)
24
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, filed on April 8,
25
2019. (ECF No. 10.) On April 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed an addendum to his motion for preliminary
26
injunction. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff asserts that he witnessed a murder weapon being conveyed to
27
the killer, heard directions about how to commit the murder being given to the killer, witnessed the
28
on duty Tower correctional officer ignore the sounds that the victim was making while the murder
1
1
was occurring, witnessed the Floor correctional officer speaking to the murderer approximately 45
2
minutes after the murder was committed, and he witnessed the correctional officers simply leaving
3
the area after their shift was over without reporting the murder. Plaintiff contends that, due to the
4
fact that he witnessed those events, prison officials at California State Prison, Corcoran are trying
5
to “get rid” of him by suspending the remainder of his Security Housing Unit (“SHU”) term and
6
transferring him to a Sensitive Needs Yard at another prison even though he has safety concerns
7
about being housed at any gang-infested Sensitive Needs Yard facility. Plaintiff seeks an injunction
8
ordering Defendant(s), their successor(s) in office, agents, and employees to retain Plaintiff in a
9
single cell in the California State Prison, Corcoran Security Housing Unit effective immediately
10
and continuing until the trial of this case occurs.
11
I.
12
DISCUSSION
13
The purpose of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction is to preserve the
14
status quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the
15
court to intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined.
16
University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary
17
injunction [or temporary restraining order] must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits,
18
that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of
19
equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural
20
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
21
“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be
22
granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v.
23
Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). A
24
party seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction simply cannot prevail when
25
that motion is unsupported by evidence.
26
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary
27
injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before
28
it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley
2
1
Forge Christian Coll. V. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471
2
(1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear
3
the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. §
4
3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief
5
[sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal
6
right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.”
7
A federal court may issue emergency injunctive relief only if it has personal jurisdiction
8
over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. See Murphy Bros., Inc. v.
9
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
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).
15
First, the Court has yet to screen Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and
16
no Defendant has been served or appeared in this action. Accordingly, the Court does not have
17
personal jurisdiction over the persons he seeks to enjoin. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1), (d)(2); Murphy
18
Bros., Inc., 526 U.S. at 350. Second, there is an insufficient basis to find that Plaintiff is likely to
19
prevail on the merits or that he faces any immediate or irreparable injury in the absence of
20
extraordinary injunctive relief. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for
21
preliminary injunction should be denied.
22
II.
23
CONCLUSION
24
25
26
27
28
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a
Fresno District Judge to this action.
Further, for the reasons explained above, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s
motion for preliminary injunction, (ECF No. 10), be DENIED.
These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge
3
1
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen
2
(14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written
3
objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
4
Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
5
specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings”
6
on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923
7
F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
April 24, 2019
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?