(PC) McDowell v. Smith et al

Filing 46

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 45 Motion for TRO signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 03/11/2025. (Deputy Clerk EF)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GIOVANNI MCDOWELL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:24-cv-00500-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

v.
(ECF No. 45)
STEVE SMITH, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. All parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C

19

§ 636(c)(1).

20
21

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, filed
March 10, 2025. (ECF No. 45.)

22

This action proceeds against Defendants Luis Cobian, Joseph Davis, Steve Smith, and

23

Jeffrey Storey for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s safety. In his present motion, Plaintiff

24

seeks a temporary restraining order against staff at Sierra Conservation Center and California

25

State Prison, Sacramento, because a second inmate has attempted to stab Plaintiff on February 13,

26

2025, and he believes California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation staff are making

27

viable physical threats against Plaintiff’s life and liberty.

28
1

1

The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a temporary

2

restraining order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the moving party

3

must show that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. See Stormans, Inc. v.

4

Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,

5

555 U.S. 7 (2008)). To the extent prior Ninth Circuit cases suggest a lesser standard by focusing

6

solely on the possibility of irreparable harm, such cases are “no longer controlling, or even

7

viable.” Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009).

8

Under Winter, the proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) he is likely to succeed on the

9

merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction; (3) the balance

10

of hardships tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. See Stormans, 586

11

F.3d at 1127 (citing Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). The court cannot, however, issue an order against

12

individuals who are not parties to the action. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.,

13

395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969).

14

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) imposes additional requirements on prisoner

15

litigants seeking preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials. In such cases,

16

“[p]reliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to

17

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

18

necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); Villery v. California Dep’t of Corr., 2016

19

WL 70326, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2016). As the Ninth Circuit has observed, the PLRA places

20

significant limits upon a court's power to grant preliminary injunctive relief to inmates, and

21

“operates simultaneously to restrict the equity jurisdiction of federal courts and to protect the

22

bargaining power of prison administrators—no longer may courts grant or approve relief that

23

binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.” Gilmore v. People of

24

the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2000). The court’s jurisdiction is “limited

25

to the parties in this action” and the pendency of an action “does not give the Court jurisdiction

26

over prison officials in general or over the conditions of an inmate’s confinement unrelated to the

27

claims before it.” Beaton v. Miller, 2020 WL 5847014, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2020). Further,

28

state governments have “traditionally been granted the widest latitude in the dispatch of [their]
2

1

own internal affairs.” Rizzo v. Goode, 423, U.S. 362, 378 (1976) (citations omitted). This

2

deference applies even more strongly when the court is asked to involve itself in the

3

administrative decisions of a prison. See Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 85 (1987); Sandin v.

4

Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482-83 (1995).

5

In his motion for injunctive relief, Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order against

6

CDCR staff so he can make it home safe and alive upon him upcoming release from prison.

7

(ECF No. 45.) The Court finds that injunctive relief is not warranted. While the Court has

8

determined that this case presents potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment safety claims,

9

Plaintiff has not established that he is likely to succeed on the merits of those claims. Plaintiff’s

10

claim that he was subjected to a second attempted assault is vague and conclusory, devoid of

11

factual support. Thus, Plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated that he is likely to suffer

12

irreparable harm in the absence of this Court’s intervention. In addition, the Court’s jurisdiction

13

is limited to the parties before it in this action and to Plaintiff’s claim for damages arising from an

14

incident of alleged deliberate indifference on or about February 14, 2023. See, e.g., Steel Co. v.

15

Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04 (1998) (“[The] triad of injury in fact, causation,

16

and redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, and the

17

party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence.”) (citation

18

omitted); American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Masto, 670 F.3d 1046, 1061-62 (9th Cir.

19

2012) (“[F]ederal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies.”) (citation

20

and internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary

21

restraining order is DENIED.

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 11, 2025
STANLEY A. BOONE
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28
3