Stevenson v. Beard et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
STEVIE J. STEVENSON,
Case No.: 3:16-CV-03079-JLS-PCL
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
RENEWED MOTION FOR
JEFFREY BEARD, Ph.D, et al.,
(ECF No. 18)
On October 25, 2017, Plaintiff Stevie J. Stevenson, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (ECF No. 18). Previously, this Court
had denied a similar motion filed by Plaintiff because the Court did not have personal
jurisdiction over the Defendants and Plaintiff had not alleged nor shown his claim met the
requirements for injunctive relief. (ECF Nos. 5, 6.) Plaintiff now argues his Motion is
timely and appropriate because of the Court’s Order directing the U.S. Marshal to effect
service of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 13.) Therein, the Court
ordered Plaintiff to serve upon Defendants “a copy of every further [filed document]
submitted for the Court’s consideration.” (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff argues his third claim
regarding the Centinela Prison mailroom staff not allowing Plaintiff to mail legal work
out of the prison warrants his request for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 18, at 2.)
In the absence of service of process (or waiver of service by the defendant), a court
ordinarily may not exercise power over a party the complaint names as defendant. See
Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987) (“Before a . . .
court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural requirement of
service of summons must be satisfied.”); Mississippi Publ’g Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U.S.
438, 444–45 (1946) (“Service of summons is the procedure by which a court . . . asserts
jurisdiction over the person of the party served.”). Thus, one becomes a party officially,
and is subject to court orders, only upon service of a summons or other authority-
asserting measure stating the time within which the party served must appear and defend.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a). Because an injunction binds only “the parties to the action,”
their “officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” and “other persons who are in
active concert or participation,” an unserved defendant cannot be bound by an injunction.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(A)–(C).
In this case, Plaintiff has not yet served any of the 12 Defendants named in his
amended complaint. As such, this Court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over these
Defendants. Omni Capital, 484 U.S. at 104. Because none of the named Defendants are
subject to the Court’s power, the Court cannot issue any type of injunction binding these
Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 4, 2017
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?