Stevenson v. Beard et al

Filing 22

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Renewed 18 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 12/4/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mpl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STEVIE J. STEVENSON,

Case No.: 3:16-CV-03079-JLS-PCL
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
RENEWED MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

JEFFREY BEARD, Ph.D, et al.,

15

Defendants.

(ECF No. 18)

16
17
18

On October 25, 2017, Plaintiff Stevie J. Stevenson, proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis, filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (ECF No. 18). Previously, this Court

20

had denied a similar motion filed by Plaintiff because the Court did not have personal

21

jurisdiction over the Defendants and Plaintiff had not alleged nor shown his claim met the

22

requirements for injunctive relief. (ECF Nos. 5, 6.) Plaintiff now argues his Motion is

23

timely and appropriate because of the Court’s Order directing the U.S. Marshal to effect

24

service of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 13.) Therein, the Court

25

ordered Plaintiff to serve upon Defendants “a copy of every further [filed document]

26

submitted for the Court’s consideration.” (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff argues his third claim

27

regarding the Centinela Prison mailroom staff not allowing Plaintiff to mail legal work

28

out of the prison warrants his request for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 18, at 2.)
1
3:16-cv-03079-JLS-PCL

1

In the absence of service of process (or waiver of service by the defendant), a court

2

ordinarily may not exercise power over a party the complaint names as defendant. See

3

Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987) (“Before a . . .

4

court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural requirement of

5

service of summons must be satisfied.”); Mississippi Publ’g Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U.S.

6

438, 444–45 (1946) (“Service of summons is the procedure by which a court . . . asserts

7

jurisdiction over the person of the party served.”). Thus, one becomes a party officially,

8

and is subject to court orders, only upon service of a summons or other authority-

9

asserting measure stating the time within which the party served must appear and defend.

10

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a). Because an injunction binds only “the parties to the action,”

11

their “officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” and “other persons who are in

12

active concert or participation,” an unserved defendant cannot be bound by an injunction.

13

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(A)–(C).

14

In this case, Plaintiff has not yet served any of the 12 Defendants named in his

15

amended complaint. As such, this Court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over these

16

Defendants. Omni Capital, 484 U.S. at 104. Because none of the named Defendants are

17

subject to the Court’s power, the Court cannot issue any type of injunction binding these

18

Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 4, 2017

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
3:16-cv-03079-JLS-PCL