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)
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?