Rios v. Strayhorn et al

Filing 18

ORDER: (1) Granting 11 Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File an Addendum; and (2) Denying 9 Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 6/13/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLOS RIOS, Case No.: 3:17-cv-00049-BEN-BGS Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 18 DAVID STRAYHORN, Correctional Officer; JONES, Correctional Officer; S. RUTLEDGE, Correctional Sergeant; A. ALLAMBY, Correctional Lieutenant; ESTRADA, Registered Nurse; CAMPOS, Licensed Vocational Nurse; G. STRATTON, Chief Deputy Warden., 19 ORDER: Defendants. 15 16 17 (1) GRANTING EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN ADDENDUM; and (2) DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [ECF No. 9, 11] 20 21 On January 9, 2017, Plaintiff Carlos Rios, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 22 brought this action for alleged violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His 23 claims arise from an incident in which a correctional officer allegedly used unreasonable 24 force against him. On May 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining 25 order (“TRO”) and a preliminary injunction. On June 1, 2017, he filed a motion for leave 26 to file an addendum to his TRO and preliminary injunction motion. The Court GRANTS 27 Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an addendum. 28 /// 1 3:17-cv-00049-BEN-BGS 1 Plaintiff alleges that Institution Classification Committee (“ICC”) members, 2 specifically “Counselor Stuart, CCI, and John Does I-IV, and Daniel Paramo, Warden,” 3 have conspired to deny Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and retaliated against his exercise 4 of his rights by proposing to transfer Plaintiff from Richard J. Donovan Correctional 5 Facility (“RJD”) to a 50/50 General Population Yard in Los Angeles State Prison. 6 Plaintiff contends that transfer to a 50/50 General Population Yard would seriously 7 threaten his health, life, and safety because he is a Sensitive Needs Yard (“SNY”) inmate. 8 Upon receiving notice that the ICC recommended a transfer, Plaintiff filed an 9 administrative grievance on a CDCR Form 602. Plaintiff now seeks a court order 10 directing the ICC members as well as Scott Kernan, Secretary of the California 11 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, to “stop immediately the proposed 12 recommendation to transfer” Plaintiff and to “halt immediately their retaliatory bias 13 towards” Plaintiff. 14 15 LEGAL STANDARD The purpose of a TRO is to preserve the status quo before a preliminary injunction 16 hearing may be held; its provisional remedial nature is designed merely to prevent 17 irreparable loss of rights prior to judgment. See Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of 18 Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974) (noting that a TRO is 19 restricted to its “underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing 20 irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer”). The 21 standard for issuing a TRO is similar to the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction. 22 Lockheed Missile & Space Co., Inc. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 887 F. Supp. 1320, 1323 23 (N.D. Cal. 1995). A party must establish that he is “likely to succeed on the merits, that 24 he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance 25 of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. 26 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citation omitted); see also Fed. R. 27 Civ. P. 65. This is an “extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear 28 showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. 2 3:17-cv-00049-BEN-BGS 1 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) further requires prisoners to satisfy 2 additional requirements when seeking preliminary injunctive relief against prison 3 officials: 4 5 6 7 8 Preliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the preliminary relief and shall respect the principles of comity set out in paragraph (1)(B) in tailoring any preliminary relief. 9 10 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Section 3626(a)(2) places significant limits upon a court’s power 11 to grant preliminary injunctive relief to inmates and “operates simultaneously to restrict 12 the equity jurisdiction of federal courts and to protect the bargaining power of prison 13 administrators—no longer may courts grant or approve relief that binds prison 14 administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.” Gilmore v. California, 220 15 F.3d 987, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2000). 16 17 DISCUSSION Plaintiff has not established that he is entitled to a TRO. As a preliminary matter, 18 Plaintiff seeks a TRO against persons that are not named defendants in this action. “A 19 federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and 20 subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of 21 persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). “Under 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), an injunction binds only ‘the parties to the action, 23 their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and [those] persons in active 24 concert or participation with’” the parties or their officers, agents, servants, employees, or 25 attorneys. Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)). The ICC members 26 and Kernan are not parties or their officers, agents, servants, employees, or attorneys. 27 Plaintiff does not allege that the ICC members and Kernan are in active concert or 28 participation with Defendants. Rather, Plaintiff alleges that ICC members and Kernan 3 3:17-cv-00049-BEN-BGS 1 are “top officials” and “supervisors” within the CDCR. Accordingly, this Court has no 2 power to bind the ICC members and Kernan. 3 Furthermore, at a minimum, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he will be subject 4 to immediate and irreparable harm if a TRO does not issue. To meet Federal Rule of 5 Civil Procedure 65’s “irreparable injury” requirement, Plaintiff must do more than simply 6 allege imminent harm; he must demonstrate it. Caribbean Marine Servs. Co., Inc. v. 7 Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988). This requires he allege “specific facts in 8 an affidavit or a verified complaint [which] clearly show” a credible threat of “immediate 9 and irreparable injury, loss or damage.” Fed R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). Plaintiff has not 10 made this showing. “Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient 11 to warrant granting a preliminary injunction.” Caribbean Marine, 844 F.2d at 674. 12 13 14 Plaintiff’s motion for a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: June 13, 2017 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 3:17-cv-00049-BEN-BGS

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?