(PC) Wilson v. California State Prison Corcoran et al, No. 1:2018cv00424 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS that Plaintiff''s Motion for Injunctive Relief be Denied signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 07/25/2018. Referred to Judge Drozd; Objections to F&R due by 8/13/2018.(Flores, E)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED Plaintiff, 11 12 Case No. 1:18-cv-00424-DAD-JDP DAVID W. WILSON, v. (Doc. No. 39.) CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON CORCORAN, et al., OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS Defendants. 14 15 16 17 David W. Wilson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 18 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking temporary and 20 permanent injunctive relief. (Doc. No. 11.) For the reasons described below, the court 21 recommends denying plaintiff’s motion. 22 23 I. RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiff seeks an injunction to compel defendants to take a multitude of actions. (Doc. 24 No. 11.) Although portions of the motion are difficult for the court to decipher, among the 25 actions plaintiff seeks to compel are “cooling measures to prevent HEAT STROKE & DEATHS” 26 (Id. at 1); “adequate [f]acilities for mental treatment” (Id.); the use of gloves during strip searches 27 to prevent communicable diseases (Id. at 3); the leveling of prison “pathways” that are riddled 28 1 1 with “pebbles” and various holes (Id.); and an overhaul of the cafeteria, where there is black mold 2 and contaminated, cold food (Id.). 3 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 4 A federal district court may issue injunctive relief only if the court has personal 5 jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. See Murphy Bros., 6 Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that one “becomes a party 7 officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of summons or other 8 authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the party served must appear to 9 defend”). The court may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before it. See 10 Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 234-35 (1916); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 11 719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979) (injunctive 12 relief must be “narrowly tailored to give only the relief to which plaintiffs are entitled”). Under 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), an injunction binds only “the parties to the action,” 14 their “officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” and “other persons who are in active 15 concert or participation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(A)-(C). Requests for prospective relief are 16 further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires 17 that the court find that the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to 18 correct the violation of the Federal Right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the 19 violation of the Federal Right.” 20 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on 21 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 22 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Glossip v. 23 Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2736-37 (2015) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 24 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). “[P]laintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in 25 order to obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 26 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). In addition to establishing irreparable harm, the injunctive relief 27 sought must be related to the claims brought in the complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC 28 v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015) (“When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief 2 1 based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an 2 injunction.”). A permanent injunction can be granted only following a final hearing on the 3 merits. See MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 520 (9th Cir.1993) (“As a 4 general rule, a permanent injunction will be granted when liability has been established . . . .”). 5 III. ANALYSIS The court will recommend that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be denied. His 6 7 request for a permanent injunction is premature; there has not been a final hearing on the merits. 8 Plaintiff’s request for a temporary injunction should also be denied because he has not established 9 that he is likely to succeed on the merits. His allegations are conclusory and bereft of detail. 10 Furthermore, plaintiff’s motion is unrelated to the allegations underlying his complaint. The 11 complaint—which, like the motion, is difficult to decipher—alleges, inter alia, that plaintiff was 12 transferred in retaliation for engaging in a protected act and was deprived of medical treatment 13 and accommodations. (Doc. No. 1, at 20-24.) Plaintiff appears to be basing his injunction 14 request on a claim of unconstitutional conditions of confinement that was not pled in the 15 complaint. 16 IV. 17 18 19 RECOMMENDATION Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be DENIED. These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the U.S. district judge assigned 20 to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days of 21 service of these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the 22 court. If plaintiff files such objections, he should do so in a document captioned “Objections to 23 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 24 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. See Wilkerson v. 25 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 26 (9th Cir. 1991)). 27 28 3 1 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: 4 July 25, 2018 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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

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.