Shahid v. Aldaz et al
Filing
24
ORDER denying 23 Motion for Preliminary Injunction signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/17/15. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
UMAR SHAHID,
12
No. 2:14-cv-0454 DAD P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
I. ALDAZ, et al.,
15
ORDER
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
18
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff‟s motion for a preliminary
19
injunctive relief.
20
21
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is proceeding on a second amended complaint against defendants Rodriguez and
22
Thompson. At screening, the court found that plaintiff‟s complaint appeared to state a cognizable
23
claim for relief against defendant Rodriguez for allegedly interfering with plaintiff‟s right to
24
marry. (Doc. No. 15) The court also found that plaintiff‟s complaint appeared to state a
25
cognizable claim for relief against defendant Thompson for retaliation. (Id.) The court ordered
26
service of plaintiff‟s complaint on defendants, and defendants have since filed an answer to the
27
complaint. (Doc. Nos. 17 & 20) On December 15, 2014, the court issued a discovery and
28
scheduling order in this matter. (Doc. No. 21)
1
1
DISCUSSION
2
In the pending motion for preliminary injunctive relief, plaintiff contends that three
3
investigative service unit officers confiscated his legal work pertaining to this lawsuit without
4
explanation. Plaintiff seeks a court order requiring that he be transferred to a different institution.
5
(Pl.‟s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 2-4.)
6
The court will deny plaintiff‟s motion without prejudice. As an initial matter, plaintiff‟s
7
motion does not comply with Local Rule 231, which requires that a motion for preliminary
8
injunctive relief be accompanied by: (1) a declaration signed under penalty of perjury on the
9
question of irreparable injury; (2) a memorandum of points and authorities addressing all legal
10
issues raised by the motion; and (3) evidence of notice to all persons who would be affected by
11
the order sought. See Local Rule 231(d).
12
Moreover, plaintiff‟s allegations are against three non-party investigative service unit
13
officers. In addition, plaintiff seeks a court order, presumably against his warden or the
14
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, transferring him to a different
15
institution. Plaintiff is advised that this court is unable to issue an order against any entity or
16
individual who is not a party to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine
17
Research, 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969); Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719,
18
727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over
19
the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the
20
rights of persons not before the court.”).
21
Finally, “[t]he proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to
22
demonstrate „that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm
23
in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an
24
injunction is in the public interest.‟” Stormans v. Selecky, 571 F.3d 960, 978 (9th Cir. 2009)
25
(quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). Here, plaintiff‟s
26
allegations concerning the confiscation of his property are vague and conclusory and fail to state a
27
claim for relief for loss of property, denial of access to the courts, or retaliation. In this regard,
28
plaintiff‟s motion also falls short of making the showing required for the granting of preliminary
2
1
injunctive relief. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, the
2
court will deny plaintiff‟s motion for preliminary injunctive relief.1
3
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff‟s motion for preliminary
4
5
injunctive relief (Doc. No. 23) is denied without prejudice.
6
Dated: March 17, 2015
7
8
9
DAD:9
shah0454.pid
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
26
27
28
If plaintiff is still without his legal property, he should first seek relief through the
administrative grievance process at his institution of incarceration. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §
3084.1(a) (prisoners may appeal “any policy, decision, action, condition, or omission by the
department or its staff that the inmate or parolee can demonstrate as having a material adverse
effect upon his or her health, safety, or welfare.”).
3
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?