Law v. Blandon et al

Filing 38

ORDER by Judge Nandor Vadas denying 36 Motion for TRO. (njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

EUREKA DIVISION

6
7

CARLOS GILBERT LAW,
No. 1:14-CV-1943 NJV (PR)
Plaintiff,

8

BLANDON, et. al.
(Doc. 36.)
Defendants.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

v.

9

/
12
13

Plaintiff proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

14

Court recently ordered service and plaintiff has now filed a motion for a preliminary

15

injunction. (Doc. 36.)

16

A.

Legal Standard

17

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.”

18

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted).

19

“The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to demonstrate

20

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

21

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

22

injunction is in the public interest.’” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th

23

Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20).

24

To show irreparable harm, the “plaintiff must show that he is under threat of suffering

25

‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent,

26

not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the

27

defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the

28

injury.” Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009) (citing Friends of Earth,

1

Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Servs. (TOC), Inc ., 528 U.S. 167, 180-181 (2000)). In sum,

2

an injunction “may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to

3

relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22.
In general, “[a] federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction

4
5

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

6

determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727

7

(9th Cir. 1985). One “becomes a party officially, and is required to take action in that

8

capacity, only upon service of summons or other authority-asserting measure stating the

9

time within which the party served must appear to defend.” Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti
Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

B.

12

Analysis
This action continues on plaintiff’s allegations that a deputy failed to protect him from

13

being assaulted by other inmates. The incident appears to have occurred at the San

14

Francisco County Jail located at 850 Bryant Street in San Francisco, and the defendant

15

was a deputy at that location. Plaintiff has been moved several times and now resides at

16

the San Francisco County Jail located at 1 Moreland Dr. in San Bruno.

17

In this motion, plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction to protect him from future

18

assaults by other inmates and retaliation by Defendant. The motion must be denied

19

because the only the defendant in this action, who has not yet been served, does not

20

appear able to provide the injunctive relief that plaintiff seeks. The defendant does not

21

work at the facility where plaintiff is housed and there is no other named defendant in this

22

action that could provide the relief plaintiff seeks. Even assuming there was an appropriate

23

defendant, plaintiff only presents general allegations that he is in danger and at risk for

24

retaliation, which is insufficient. His conclusory allegations do not show a concrete and

25

particular threat to justify the issuance of such an extraordinary remedy.

26
27
28
2

CONCLUSION

1
2

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Docket No. 36) is DENIED.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: November 3, 2014.
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
G:\PRO-SE\NJV\CR.14\Law1943.pi.wpd

28
3

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
EUREKA DIVISION
4
5
6
CARLOS GILBERT LAW,

No. 1:14-CV-01943 NJV (PR)

7
Plaintiff,
8
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
BLANDON, et al.,
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Defendants.
___________________________________/

12
13

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on November 3, 2014, I SERVED a true and correct

14

copy of the attached, by placing said copy in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)

15

listed below, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail.

16
17
18
19
20

Carlos Gilbert Law
SF#658840
San Francisco Co. Jail
1 Moreland Dr.
San Bruno, CA 94066

21
22
23
24

____________________________________

Linn Van Meter
Administrative Law Clerk to
the Honorable Nandor J. Vadas

25
26
27
28
4