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)

Download PDF
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

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?