(PC) Quiroga v. Cooper et al, No. 1:2017cv00004 - Document 62 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Deny Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 8/2/18. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MONICO J. QUIROGA III, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 Case No. 1:17-cv-00004-DAD-JDP FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION v. C. COOPER, et al., (Doc. No. 57.) Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Plaintiff Monico J. Quiroga III is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He brings an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against defendants C. Cooper and J. Moreno. Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting to “add jurisdiction [pursuant] to 28 U.S.C. § 2361” and a preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 57.) For the reasons described below, the court recommends denying plaintiff’s motion. 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 1 I. RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiff requests an injunction to enjoin “[nonstop] harassment over satellite.” (Id.) He 2 3 has submitted a declaration stating that the Kern County Sherriff’s Office Gang and Narcotics 4 Task Force is using military tactics, such as sensory deprivation, to invade his “sphere of the 5 intellect.” (Id.) 6 7 II. LEGAL STANDARDS A federal district court may issue injunctive relief only if the court has personal 8 jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. See Murphy Bros., 9 Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that one “becomes a 10 party officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of summons or 11 other authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the party served must appear to 12 defend”). The court may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before it. See 13 Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 234-35 (1916); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 14 719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979) 15 (injunctive relief must be “narrowly tailored to give only the relief to which plaintiffs are 16 entitled”). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), an injunction binds only “the 17 parties to the action,” their “officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” and “other 18 persons who are in active concert or participation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(A)-(C). Requests 19 for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation 20 Reform Act, which requires that the court find that the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, 21 extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right, and is the least 22 intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right.” 23 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed 24 on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, 25 that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” 26 Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2736-37 (2015) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. 27 Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). “[P]laintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is 28 likely, not just possible, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliance for the Wild 2 1 Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). In addition to establishing irreparable 2 harm, the injunctive relief sought must be related to the claims brought in the complaint. See 3 Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015) 4 (“When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court 5 does not have the authority to issue an injunction.”). 6 III. 7 ANALYSIS As a preliminary matter, plaintiff cites to 28 U.S.C. § 2361 as authority for his request. 8 The statute is applicable to interpleader actions and was, thus, cited in error. See 28 U.S.C. § 9 2361 (applicable “[i]n any civil action of interpleader”). The court construes plaintiff’s 10 injunction request as a request for a preliminary injunction under Federal Rule of Civil 11 Procedure 65. 12 The court will recommend that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be denied. The 13 complaint alleges that defendants Cooper and Moreno used excessive force against plaintiff 14 while he was detained in Kern County. (Doc. No. 1.) The injunction request is directed at the 15 Kern County Sherriff’s Office, which is not a defendant in this case. (Doc. No. 19.) The only 16 defendant who has appeared in this case is defendant Cooper, and the motion does not identify 17 any conduct by Cooper that plaintiff is seeking to enjoin. Thus, plaintiff appears to be basing 18 his injunction request on a claim of unconstitutional conditions of confinement that was not 19 pled in the complaint. Accordingly, the court does not have authority to issue the requested 20 injunction. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, 810 F.3d at 633 (“When a plaintiff seeks injunctive 21 relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue 22 an injunction.”). 23 IV. 24 RECOMMENDATION Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive 25 relief (Doc. No. 57) be DENIED. 26 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the U.S. district judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 28 (14) days of service of these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 3 1 objections with the court. If plaintiff files such objections, he should do so in a document 2 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 3 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 4 on appeal. See Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 5 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: August 2, 2018 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.