Belyew v. Lorman et al

Filing 124

ORDER signed by District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta on 9/26/2023 DENYING 112 Motion for Restraining Order, and DENYING 122 Request for Jury Instructions. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LISA MARIE BELYEW,

12

No. 2:17-cv-00723-DJC-CKD

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER

LARRY LORMAN,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff has filed a request for a restraining order against the “California

17
18

Department of Corrections Medical” based on their refusal to permit Plaintiff to access

19

her legal documents as she has refused to take a COVID-19 test.1 (ECF No. 112.)
To prevail on such a request, the moving party must show that “[s]he is likely to

20
21

succeed on the merits, that [s]he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

22

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

23

in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).

24

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

25

succeed on the merits; (2) she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an

26
27
28

1

As the motion does not seek injunctive relief against Defendant and is not “directed at Defendant,”
Defendant has not elected to not address the substance of Plaintiff’s request. (ECF No. 119.)
Defendant does object to any delay of trial on these grounds as Plaintiff has not established sufficient
basis for a delay. (Id. at 1–2.)

1

1

injunction; (3) the balance of hardships tips in her favor, and (4) an injunction is in the

2

public interest. See Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009)

3

(citing Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). However, injunctive relief against individuals who are

4

not parties to an action is strongly disfavored. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine

5

Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969) (“It is elementary that one is not bound by a

6

judgment ... resulting from litigation in which he is not designated as a party....”).

7

Plaintiff’s motion is a request for injunctive relief against individuals who are not

8

parties to this action. (ECF No. 112.) As such, injunctive relief is strongly disfavored.

9

See Zenith Radio Corp, 395 U.S. at 110. Further, Plaintiff requests relief unrelated to

10

the issues underlying this case. As the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiff is not

11

based on claims asserted in the complaint, the court does not have authority to grant

12

the requested injunctive relief. Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Medical

13

Center, 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015) (“When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief

14

based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have authority to issue

15

an injunction.”).

16

The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) does permit the Court to issue writs

17

“necessary or appropriate in aid of their jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and

18

principles of law.” However, the All Writs Act is meant to aid the court in the exercise

19

and preservation of its jurisdiction. Plum Creek Lumber Co. v. Hutton, 608 F.2d 1283,

20

1289 (9th Cir. 1979). Nothing in Plaintiff’s motion indicates that injunctive relief is

21

necessary for the court to exercise or preserve its jurisdiction.

22

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Restraining order (ECF No. 112) is denied.

23

Plaintiff has also requested that the Court issue an order directing the California

24

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to “print out necessary jury

25

instructions and any and all documents necessary to prepare for trial.” (ECF No. 122.)

26

Plaintiff claims that CDCR refuses to give her access to these documents and argues

27

that this is a violation of her due process rights. (Id.)

28

////
2

1

This request appears to be an extension of Plaintiff’s motion for a restraining

2

order as discussed above. To the extent Plaintiff’s request is made on the same basis

3

as that prior motion (see ECF No. 112), Plaintiff’s request is denied. If Plaintiff’s

4

request is made based on different facts, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient facts on

5

which the Court could determine such an order is necessary and legally appropriate.

6

In accordance with the above and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY

7

ORDERED that:

8

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Restraining Order (ECF No. 112) is DENIED; and

9

2. Plaintiff’s Request for Jury Instructions (ECF No. 122) is DENIED.

10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Dated:

September 26, 2023
Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3