Williams v. Paramo et al

Filing 112

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunction (ECF Nos. 99 , 101 , 105 ). Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 11/6/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mxn)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

LONNIE WILLIAMS,
CDCR #T-54378,

Case No.: 3:12-cv-00113-BTM-RBB
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

Plaintiff,

13
vs.

14
15
16

(Doc. Nos. 99, 101, 105)
DANIEL PARAMO, et al.
Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

I.

Procedural History
Lonnie Williams, Plaintiff, is a state inmate who currently resides at the California

25

State Prison - Sacramento (“CSP”) located in Represa, California. When Plaintiff

26

initially filed this action on January 12, 2012, she was incarcerated at the Richard J.

27

Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) but she was subsequently transferred to CSP in

28

April of 2012. Plaintiff has been housed at CSP since April of 2012.
1
3:12-cv-00113-BTM-RBB

On August 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “Notice and Motion for Injunctive and

1
2

Declaratory Relief.” (Doc. No. 74.) Defendants filed an Opposition to this Motion.

3

(Doc. No. 75.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion without prejudice and Plaintiff has

4

since filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.1 (Doc. Nos. 76, 82.)

5

Currently before the Court are two “Motions for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief” and a

6

“Motion for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief and Physical Access to the Law Library

7

and Court.” (Doc. Nos. 99, 101, 105.) Defendants have filed two Oppositions. (Doc.

8

Nos. 103, 106.)

9

II.

Plaintiff’s Motions for Preliminary Injunction

10

As stated in the Court’s September 7, 2017 Order, procedurally, a federal district

11

court may issue emergency injunctive relief only if it has personal jurisdiction over the

12

parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. See Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti

13

Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that one “becomes a party

14

officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of summons or

15

other authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the party served must

16

appear to defend.”). The court may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not

17

before it. See, e.g., Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 234-35 (1916);

18

Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

19

Procedure 65(d)(2), an injunction binds only “the parties to the action,” their “officers,

20

agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” and “other persons who are in active concert

21

or participation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 65(d)(2)(A)-(C).

22

The first Motion filed by Plaintiff on October 17, 2017 (Doc. No. 99) contains the

23

same allegations and the same request for injunctive relief brought in the previous

24

preliminary injunction motion which was denied by this Court. That is the matter that is

25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s appeal is subject to a pre-filing order by the Ninth Circuit which is not yet reached a
determination whether Plaintiff will be permitted to proceed with the appeal.
See https://pcl.uscourts.gov/search (website last visited Oct. 27, 2017)
1

2
3:12-cv-00113-BTM-RBB

1

currently on appeal before the Ninth Circuit. The Court is divested of jurisdiction to

2

alter, amend or modify the September 7, 2017 Order due to the filing of the notice of

3

appeal. See Pope v. Sav. Bank of Puget Sound, 850 F.2d 1345m 1347 (9th Cir. 1988).

4

Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for all the reasons set forth in the Court’s

5

September 7, 2017 Order.

6

In the second Motion filed by Plaintiff on October 19, 2017 (Doc. No. 101), she

7

claims that she has been denied access to the CSP law library in violation of her right to

8

access to the courts.2 (Doc. No. 101 at 2.) Plaintiff has attached as exhibits a “Priority

9

Library User (PLU) Request and Declaration” form and the case scheduling order issued

10

by Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks on June 22, 2017. (Id. at 7-15.) Defendants have

11

filed an Opposition to this Motion. (Doc. No. 103.)

12

First, the Court has no personal jurisdiction over prison officials at CSP as they are

13

not parties to this action and therefore, cannot grant the injunctive relief requested. See

14

FED. R. CIV. P. 65(a)(1), (d)(2); Murphy Bros., Inc., 526 U.S. at 350; Zepeda, 753 F.2d at

15

727-28.
Second, as the Defendants correctly note, Plaintiff’s own exhibits indicate that she

16
17

requested library access in October 3, 2017 indicating that she had a deadline of

18

December 11, 2017 to perform “discovery.” (Doc. No. 101 at 7.) However, the

19

scheduling order, which Plaintiff has also attached to her Motion, clearly states that

20

discovery was to have been completed by August 7, 2017. (Id. at 9.) This is two months

21

before Plaintiff sought library access. The only scheduled date in December is a deadline

22

for filing pre-trial motions. (Id. at 11.) Moreover, Plaintiff was denied access, at this

23

time, for the reason that the deadline she provided was “too far in the future.” (Id. at 7.)

24

There is nothing in the record that would indicate that Plaintiff would not be permitted

25
26
27
28

2

Plaintiff appears to raise new claims of retaliation and access to courts in this Motion. However,
because these claims have arisen at her current place of incarceration and are unrelated to this action,
Plaintiff would need to file a new and separate action in the Eastern District of California.
3
3:12-cv-00113-BTM-RBB

1

access at a later date. For all these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for

2

“Physical Access to the Law Library” without prejudice.
Plaintiff’s third Motion for injunctive relief seeks an order directing “the California

3
4

Department of Justice (DOJ) to provide the Plaintiff with her complaint challenging the

5

(DOJ) to correct the Plaintiff’s criminal history records.” (Doc. No. 105 at 1-2.) In

6

addition, Plaintiff seeks an order to “provide the Plaintiff with her criminal history

7

records/reports, and the Plaintiff’s California Law Enforcement Telecommunications

8

System (CLETS).” (Id. at 2.) Finally, Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants to

9

provide her with the “Plaintiff’s appeal log #RJD-B-11-00800” which she claims

10

“Defendants refused to return to the Plaintiff for trial purposes and evidence.” (Id.)

11

The Court has previously informed Plaintiff that it does not have personal

12

jurisdiction over the California Department of Justice in this matter and thus, cannot grant

13

her request for injunctive relief. (See Doc. No. 76 at 3.) A district court has no authority

14

to grant relief in the form of a temporary restraining order or permanent injunction where

15

it has no jurisdiction over the parties. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574,

16

584 (1999) (“Personal jurisdiction, too, is an essential element of the jurisdiction of a

17

district ... court, without which the court is powerless to proceed to an adjudication.”)

18

(citation and internal quotation omitted).
Plaintiff’s request for a copy of her administrative appeal is DENIED as moot as

19
20

Defendants have attached a copy of the appeal to their Opposition. (Doc. No. 106 at 5-6.)

21

III.

Conclusion and Order

22

Good cause appearing, the Court:

23

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motions for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. Nos. 99, 101, 105)

24

without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated: November 6, 2017

27
28
4
3:12-cv-00113-BTM-RBB