James v. United States Marshals Service Agents et al

Filing 35

ORDER Granting 32 Motion for Extension of Time to File First Amended Complaint; and Denying 30 Motion for Immediate Action. Plaintiff is granted sixty (60) days leave to file a FAC from the date this Order is filed. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 1/11/18. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KYLE JAMES,

Case No.: 3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER:

v.
UNITED STATES MARSHAL
SERVICE, et al.,

15

(1) DENYING MOTION FOR
IMMEDIATE ACTION; AND

Defendants.

16

(2) GRANTING EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE TO FILE FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT

17
18
19
20

Kyle James (“Plaintiff”), currently housed at the San Diego Central Jail located in

21
22

San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

23

§ 1983 and the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). See Compl. at 1, ECF Doc. No. 1.

24

On August 8, 2017, the Court DISMISSED this action for failing to state a claim

25

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. ECF Doc. No. 18. Plaintiff was granted forty five (45)

26

days leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Id. When that time passed and Plaintiff

27

failed to comply with the Court’s Order, the entire action was dismissed. ECF Doc. No.

28

19.
1
3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM

1

Plaintiff later filed a Motion to Set Aside the Judgment which the Court

2

GRANTED, in part, on November 20, 2017. ECF Doc. No. 27. Plaintiff was given an

3

additional sixty (60) days leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Id.
On January 3, 2018, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Immediate Action” which the

4
5

Court liberally construes as a motion seeking immediate injunctive relief and a “Motion

6

for Extension of Time to File First Amended Complaint.” ECF Doc. Nos. 30, 32.

7

I.

8
9

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Procedurally, a federal district court may issue emergency injunctive relief only if

it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the

10

lawsuit. See Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999)

11

(noting that one “becomes a party officially, and is required to take action in that

12

capacity, only upon service of summons or other authority-asserting measure stating the

13

time within which the party served must appear to defend.”). The court may not attempt

14

to determine the rights of persons not before it. See, e.g., Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v.

15

Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 234-35 (1916); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727-28 (9th Cir.

16

1983). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), an injunction binds only

17

“the parties to the action,” their “officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,”

18

and “other persons who are in active concert or participation.” FED. R. CIV. P.

19

65(d)(2)(A)-(C).

20

In Plaintiff’s Motion, he claims that he is now a “pretrial detainee” and is housed at

21

the San Diego Central Jail. Pl.’s Mot., ECF Doc. No. 30, at 1. He claims that he arrived

22

there from Corcoran State Prison on December 21, 2017 but as of December 27, 2017 he

23

has not been given his boxes of legal property. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff seeks an Order from

24

this Court ordering the “Office of County Counsel to track legal property and ensure

25

Plaintiff’s very expensive library of legal books and case discovery be returned.” Id. at 2.

26

All the named Defendants in the matter before this Court are alleged to be federal

27

employees and none of the name Defendants are alleged to be employed by the County of

28

San Diego. Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief that would require the Court to presume
2
3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM

1

jurisdiction over parties who are not part of this action. The Court cannot grant Plaintiff

2

injunctive relief because it has no personal jurisdiction over County of San Diego

3

officials. See FED. R. CIV. P. 65(a)(1), (d)(2); Murphy Bros., Inc., 526 U.S. at 350;

4

Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727-28. A district court has no authority to grant relief in the form of

5

a temporary restraining order or permanent injunction where it has no jurisdiction over

6

the parties. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 584 (1999) (“Personal

7

jurisdiction, too, is an essential element of the jurisdiction of a district ... court, without

8

which the court is powerless to proceed to an adjudication.”) (citation and internal

9

quotation omitted).

10

In addition, Plaintiff has indicated that his counsel representing him in his state

11

criminal proceedings is already seeking this relief in the State Court on his behalf. See

12

Pl.’s Mot. at 2-3. Thus, Plaintiff’s submission fails to set out “specific facts in an

13

affidavit or a verified complaint ... [which] clearly show that immediate and irreparable

14

injury, loss, or damage will result ... before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.”

15

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A); Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1128 (9th Cir. 2001)

16

(“[I]njunctive relief is ‘to be used sparingly, and only in a clear and plain case,’”

17

especially when the court is asked to enjoin the conduct of a state agency) (quoting Rizzo

18

v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 378 (1976)).
Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for “Immediate Action” must be DENIED.

19
20

II.

Conclusion and Order

21

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that:

22

(1)

23
24

Plaintiff’s Motion for “Immediate Action,” ECF Doc. No. 30, is DENIED

without prejudice.
(2)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to file his First Amended

25

Complaint (“FAC”), ECF Doc. no. 32, is GRANTED. The Court will grant Plaintiff one

26

final extension to file his FAC in this matter. Plaintiff is granted sixty (60) days leave to

27

file a FAC from the date this Order is filed. Plaintiff’s FAC must cure all the problems

28

with his previous pleadings identified in the Court’s August 8, 2017 Order.
3
3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM

1

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended pleading within sixty (60) days, this entire

2

action will be dismissed for the reasons set forth in the Court’s August 8, 2017 Order and

3

for failing to comply with a Court Order.

4

Dated: January 11, 2018

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM