Salas v. Candelario et al

Filing 22

ORDER: The Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff Juan Laya Salas (ECF No. 21 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 10/13/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ag)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JUAN LAYA SALAS,

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00324-WQH-AHG
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER

CANDELARIO; SANTANA; J.
SALINAS; S. ROBERTS,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

HAYES, Judge:
The matter before the Court is the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed by
Plaintiff Juan Laya Salas. (ECF No. 21).
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

21

On February 20, 2020, Plaintiff Juan Laya Salas, a state prisoner proceeding pro se,

22

filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF. No. 1). On the same day,

23

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (ECF. No. 2). On March

24

18, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Compliant and Exhibits. (ECF No. 7). On April

25

7, 2020, the Court issued an Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma

26

Pauperis and dismissing “all claims against Defendants Santana, Salinas, and Roberts for

27

failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and §1915A(b)”. (ECF No. 8 at

28

10). The Court further stated, in relevant part,
1
3:20-cv-00324-WQH-AHG

1

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date
of this Order in which to either: (1) Notify the Court of the intention to proceed
with the claims against Candelario only; or (2) File an Amended Complaint
which cures all the deficiencies of pleading noted. Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint must be complete in itself without reference to his original
pleading. Defendants not named and any claims not re-alleged in the
Amended Complaint will be considered waived.

2
3
4
5
6

Id. at 11 (emphasis omitted).

7
8
9

On April 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Complaint. (ECF No. 10). On May
18, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Intent to Proceed with the Claims against Defendant
Candelario Only. (ECF No. 11). On May 27, 2020, the Court issued an Order dismissing

10

“all claims against Santana, Salinas, and Roberts for the reasons set forth in the Court’s

11

April 7, 2020 Order”; directing “the Clerk to issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s Complaint

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

and Supplemental Complaint (ECF Nos. 1, 7) and forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank
U.S. Marshal Form 285 for Defendant Candelario . . . so that he may serve Defendant
Candelario”; and ordering the U.S. Marshal Service “to serve a copy of the Complaint,
Supplemental Complaint (ECF Nos. 1, 7) and summons upon Defendant Candelario as
directed by Plaintiff on the USM Form 285 provided to him.” (ECF No. 12 at 2-3). On
May 28, 2020, the Clerk of the Court issued a summons. (ECF No. 13). The record reflects
that no proof of service has been filed.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

On October 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No.
21).
PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS
Plaintiff “request[s] for a court’s order to stop harassment and for a short period of
time as to exhaust administrative remedies in order to ma[k]e an injunction and in order to
satisfy the Prison Litigation Reform Act . . . .” (ECF No. 21 at 1). Plaintiff contends “that
there has been done an unconstitutional racketing duty during the process of receiving the

26

prisoner’s via outside store packages and it could be increase worse off if a court order

27

don’t stop such a racket . . . .” Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff contends that “the Receiving & Release

28
2
3:20-cv-00324-WQH-AHG

1

Office (R&R) has a policy and or custom of an unconstitutional method without any

2

memorandum been sealed from the administration to do their duty the way they did.” Id.

3

at 2. Plaintiff asserts that “they open the store coming items box in front of the prisoner

4

and ordered him to put inside of a laundry bag all caming items without let check out first

5

him if anything been charged on the store list is really at there.” Id. Plaintiff asserts that

6

“as a result after a while, when the prisoner found out that some items that has been charged

7

in the store list is missed in the laundry bag it would come too late to complaint about it

8

they always would say ‘you signed it you got it and get off my face!’” Id. Plaintiff

9

contends that “when a particular targeted prisoner is on the scope they used promptly this

10

unusual and illegal tactic as to harass him but if in any case the targeted prisoner signed a

11

refusal then, later on they just would be put it back in the box all missed items retaped it

12

and returned to the store.” Id. Plaintiff asserts that “in the present action, there were not

13

any verifying refusal signature but there were the missed charged items in the laundry bag

14

of Plaintiff’s of $16.70 which is appealing right now through via of A (CDCR 602).” Id.

15

Plaintiff “is asking the Court for an order to stop all type of harassment and for a

16

short period of time until the exhaust of administrative remedies available has been done

17

and to invoke injunction due process reprisals for been exercising a complaint of the case

18

no, 3:20-cv-0324-WQH-AHG.” Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff “is needing of an order of harassment

19

protection while the Court is considering this complaint docket number above, the

20

racketing acts explained also above, whether Plaintiff’s has it suffer injury once is likely

21

going to suffering it again soon or twice and much more worse off everytime he gets store

22

pockets because he would be exposed to it and to so many type of harassments that will be

23

in their hands . . . .” Id. at 3.

24

DISCUSSION

25

Procedurally, a federal district court may issue emergency injunctive relief only if it

26

has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit.

27

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

28

that one “becomes a party officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only
3
3:20-cv-00324-WQH-AHG

1

upon service of summons or other authority-asserting measure stating the time within

2

which the party served must appear to defend.”). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2)

3

states that an injunction “binds only the following who receive actual notice of it by

4

personal service or otherwise:” “the parties;” “the parties’ officers, agents, servants,

5

employees, and attorneys; and” “other persons who are in active concert or participation

6

with anyone described in Rule 65(d)(2)(A) or (B).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(A)-(C). The

7

court may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before it. See, e.g., Hitchman

8

Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 234-35 (1916) (“It also was erroneous to

9

include personal relief by injunction against certain named parties who . . . were not served

10

with process and did not appear, they being included upon the ground that they were ‘before

11

the court by representation through service having been had upon their said predecessors

12

in office.’”); Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983) (“The district court

13

must, therefore, tailor the injunction to affect only those persons over which it has power.”).

14

Substantively, “[a] plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he

15

is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence

16

of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is

17

in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The

18

Court of Appeals has “also articulated an alternate formulation of the Winter test, under

19

which serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships that tips sharply

20

towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as the

21

plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is

22

in the public interest.” Farris v. Seabrook, 677 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2012). “[A]

23

preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be

24

granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek

25

v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997).

26

In this case, no proof of service has been filed as to Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No.

27

1), Plaintiff’s Supplemental Complaint (ECF No. 7), and the summons upon Defendant

28

Candelario. Defendant Candelario, the only remaining defendant, has no actual notice of
4
3:20-cv-00324-WQH-AHG

1

Plaintiff’s Complaints (ECF Nos. 1, 7) or his Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF

2

No. 21). Therefore, the Court cannot grant Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief because

3

it has no personal jurisdiction over any Defendant at this time. See Murphy Bros., Inc.,

4

526 U.S. at 350; Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2). A district court has no authority to grant relief

5

in the form of a temporary restraining order or permanent injunction where it has no

6

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

7

(alteration in original) (“Personal jurisdiction, too, is an essential element of the jurisdiction

8

of a district ... court, without which the court is powerless to proceed to an adjudication.”).

9

CONCLUSION

10
11
12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed by
Plaintiff Juan Laya Salas (ECF No. 21) is DENIED.
Dated: October 13, 2020

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
3:20-cv-00324-WQH-AHG