Williams v. Paramo et al

Filing 76

ORDER Denying 74 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 9/7/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mxn)

Download PDF
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 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 15 16 DANIEL PARAMO, et al. Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Lonnie Williams, Plaintiff, is a state inmate who currently resides at the California 24 State Prison - Sacramento (“CSP”) located in Represa, California. When Plaintiff 25 initially filed this action on January 12, 2012, she was incarcerated at the Richard J. 26 Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) but she was subsequently transferred to CSP in 27 April of 2012. Plaintiff has been housed at CSP since April of 2012. 28 /// 1 3:12-cv-00113-BTM-RBB 1 On August 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “Notice and Motion for Injunctive and 2 Declaratory Relief.” (Doc. No. 74.) Defendants have filed an Opposition to this Motion. 3 (Doc. No. 75.) 4 I. 5 Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction Procedurally, a federal district court may issue emergency injunctive relief only if 6 it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the 7 lawsuit. See Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) 8 (noting that one “becomes a party officially, and is required to take action in that 9 capacity, only upon service of summons or other authority-asserting measure stating the 10 time within which the party served must appear to defend.”). The court may not attempt 11 to determine the rights of persons not before it. See, e.g., Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. 12 Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 234-35 (1916); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 13 1983). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), an injunction binds only 14 “the parties to the action,” their “officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” 15 and “other persons who are in active concert or participation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 16 65(d)(2)(A)-(C). The matter before this Court involves Plaintiff’s allegations against various prison 17 18 officials when she was housed at RJD prior to April of 2012. (See Compl., Doc. No. 1, at 19 1-2.) However, in her current Motion, she claims that she is in “constant and continuing 20 imminent dangers based on the defendants and CSP - Sacramento, and CDCR officials, 21 DOJ, District Attorneys, etc.” (Pl.’s Mot., Doc. No. 74, at 2.) Plaintiff seeks injunctive 22 relief in the form of “ordering the California Department of Justice (DOJ) to expunge and 23 remove” a variety of documents from “Plaintiff’s criminal history reports.” (Id. at 6.) 24 Plaintiff also seeks an order directing “Defendants and CDCR officials to discontinue all 25 “R” suffix labelling and placements upon the Plaintiff in the Plaintiff’s central files.” 26 (Id.) 27 /// 28 /// 2 3:12-cv-00113-BTM-RBB First, as Defendants note in their Opposition, the “California Department of 1 2 Justice” and unnamed “CDCR officials” are not parties to this action. Defendants also 3 maintain that two of the named Defendants in this action are retired and all are 4 “affiliated” with RJD, not CSP. (Defs.’ Opp’n, Doc. No. 75, at 2.) The Court cannot 5 grant Plaintiff injunctive relief because it has no personal jurisdiction over the California 6 Department of Justice or unnamed CDCR officials at CSP. See FED. R. CIV. P. 65(a)(1), 7 (d)(2); Murphy Bros., Inc., 526 U.S. at 350; Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727-28. A district court 8 has no authority to grant relief in the form of a temporary restraining order or permanent 9 injunction where it has no jurisdiction over the parties. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 10 526 U.S. 574, 584 (1999) (“Personal jurisdiction, too, is an essential element of the 11 jurisdiction of a district ... court, without which the court is powerless to proceed to an 12 adjudication.”) (citation and internal quotation omitted). Substantively, “‘[a] plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he 13 14 is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 15 absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an 16 injunction is in the public interest.” Glossip v. Gross, __ U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2736- 17 37 (2015) (quoting Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 18 (2008)). “Under Winter, plaintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just 19 possible, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. 20 Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). 21 Plaintiff has been housed at CSP since April of 2012. Since that time, Plaintiff has 22 filed twenty one (21) conditions of confinement actions in the Eastern District of 23 California relating to various claims of harassment, threats, assaults and allegations of 24 poisoning by CSP prison officials.1 A court “‘may take notice of proceedings in other 25 courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a 26 27 28 1 See PACER Case Locator, https://pcl.uscourts.gov/search (website last visited August 30, 2017.) 3 3:12-cv-00113-BTM-RBB 1 direct relation to matters at issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)). In the Motion before this Court, she claims that CSP “prison officials and inmates 3 4 are constantly attacking Plaintiff with physical force, constant threats of harm.” (Pl.’s 5 Mot. at 2.) If Plaintiff wishes to proceed on these claims, she should file a complaint in 6 the Eastern District of California. 7 II. Conclusion and Order 8 Good cause appearing, the Court: 9 DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 74) without 10 11 prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 14 15 Dated: September 7, 2017 HON. BARRY TED. MOSKOWITZ Chief District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 3:12-cv-00113-BTM-RBB

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?