Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants the plaintiff an additional thirty days to submit an in forma pauperis application and certified inmate trust account statement. The magistrate judge recommends denying the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief without prejudice because defendants had not been served, the motion did not satisfy the Winter factors, lacked a clear nexus to the complaint, and was not narrowly drawn under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The findings and recommendations were issued subject to objections within fourteen days.
Holdings
- A federal district court may not grant the requested preliminary injunctive relief against defendants who have not been served with process because the court lacks personal jurisdiction over them.
- Plaintiff was not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief because he did not address or establish the required Winter elements, including likely success on the merits, irreparable harm, favorable equities, and the public interest.
- The court lacked authority to grant injunctive relief unrelated to the claims pleaded in the complaint.
- The requested relief did not satisfy the Prison Litigation Reform Act because it was not narrowly drawn, did not extend no further than necessary to correct the alleged harm, and was not shown to be the least intrusive means of doing so.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court could grant preliminary injunctive relief against defendants who had not been served and over whom the court lacked personal jurisdiction.
- Whether plaintiff established the Winter factors required for a preliminary injunction.
- Whether the requested relief was sufficiently connected to the claims pleaded in the complaint.
- Whether the requested relief satisfied the Prison Litigation Reform Act's requirements that prisoner injunctive relief be narrowly drawn, no broader than necessary, and the least intrusive means of correcting the alleged harm.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (11)
- Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)(followed)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 23-24 (2008)(followed)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983)(followed)
- Caribbean Marine Service Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988)(followed)
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 130-31 (1969)(followed)
- FDIC v. Garner, 125 F.3d 1272, 1279-80 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 (1998)(followed)
- Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999)(followed)
- Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631, 633, 636 (9th Cir. 2015)(followed)
- Beaton v. Miller, 2020 WL 5847014, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2020)(followed)
- Gilmore v. People of the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 11.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.