Maldonado v. Adler
Filing
13
ORDER Denying 11 Motion for TRO signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 06/07/2011. (Flores, E)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
ANTONIO MALDONADO,
11
CASE NO.
Plaintiff,
12
1:10-cv-01170-MJS (PC)
O RD ER D ENYING M OT I O N FO R
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
v.
(ECF No. 11)
13
NEIL H. ADLER, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
/
16
ORDER
17
18
19
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Antonio Maldonado is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
20
pauperis in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
21
22
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on July 1,
23
2010. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No.
24
7). Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, filed August 20, 2010, was dismissed with leave
25
to amend for failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted. (ECF Nos. 9,
26
12). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
27
1
1
(ECF No. 11).
2
II.
3
ARGUMENT
Plaintiff is asking the Court to order medical staff at Taft Correctional Institution to
4
5
perform surgery on Plaintiff’s hernia. Plaintiff alleges that his pain increases as the hernia
6
grows larger in size. He has submitted multiple requests for surgery, but believes that
7
surgery is being denied because his release date is approaching. Plaintiff argues that the
8
medical staff is disregarding prison policy in not treating his condition.
9
III.
10
LEGAL STANDARDS
A temporary restraining order (TRO) may be granted without written or oral notice
11
12
to the adverse party or that party’s attorney only if: (1) it clearly appears from specific facts
13
shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss
14
or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or the party’s attorney can
15
be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s attorney certifies in writing the efforts, if any,
16
which have been made to give notice and the reasons supporting the claim that notice
17
should not be required. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b).
18
19
The standards for a TRO are essentially the same as that for a preliminary
20
injunction. To be entitled to preliminary injunctive relief, a party must demonstrate “that he
21
is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence
22
of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is
23
in the public interest.” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009)
24
(citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008)). The Ninth
25
26
Circuit has also held that the “sliding scale” approach it applies to preliminary injunctions
27
2
1
as it relates to the showing a plaintiff must make regarding his chances of success on the
2
merits survives Winter and continues to be valid. Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622
3
F.3d 1045, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2010).
Under this sliding scale, the elements of the
4
5
preliminary injunction test are balanced.
6
As it relates to the merits analysis, a stronger showing of irreparable harm to plaintiff might
7
offset a lesser showing of likelihood of success on the merits. Id.
8
In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary
9
injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm
10
the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to
11
12
correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
13
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the
14
court must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461
15
U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church
16
and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118,
17
1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it
18
has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. “A federal court may issue an injunction
19
20
if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim;
21
it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v.
22
United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985).
23
IV.
24
ANALYSIS
The Court may not address the merits of Plaintiff’s motion because the Court does
25
not have jurisdiction over the matter. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was the operative
26
27
pleading and was dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state any claims upon
3
1
which relief may be granted. Thus, at this point in time, there is no case or controversy
2
before the court, and the court has no jurisdiction to issue any preliminary injunctions. See
3
Velasquez v. Allison, 2009 WL 776994, *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2009). Until and unless the
4
5
Court finds that plaintiff has stated cognizable claims for relief under section 1983 and the
6
defendants against whom the claims are stated have been served and made an
7
appearance in this action, the Court will not have jurisdiction to issue any orders awarding
8
the relief plaintiff seeks. Calderon v. Woodford, 2009 WL 3381038, *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19,
9
2009).
10
Furthermore, as Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed for failure to state upon which
11
12
13
relief can be granted, Plaintiff has not shown a probability of likelihood of success on the
merits.
The criteria for injunctive relief have not been met, and Plaintiff’s Motion for a
14
15
Temporary Restraining Order, filed October 14, 2010, must be denied.
16
V.
17
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary
18
19
Restraining Order is DENIED.
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
Dated:
ci4d6
June 7, 2011
/s/
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
27
4
]]>
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?
