(PC) Mois v. Ciolli et al, No. 1:2020cv00885 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's Motions for Injunctive Relief be DENIED as MOOT re 8 ;referred to Judge Ishii; New Case Number is 1:20-CV-00885 AWI-JLT (PC), signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/16/2020. (Objections to F&R due within 14-Day Deadline)(Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EMANUEL MOIS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 A. CIOLLI, et al., 15 Case No.: 1:20-cv-00885-JLT (PC) ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Defendants. (Docs. 4, 8) 16 FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 17 18 Plaintiff is a federal inmate who has filed two motions for injunctive relief concerning the 19 conditions of his confinement at United States Penitentiary in Atwater, California (“USP-Atwater). 20 (Docs. 4, 8.) Plaintiff has since been transferred out of that institution and is presently at another 21 institution where the conditions complained of do not exist. (See First Am. Compl. [Doc. 14 at 12].) 22 Procedurally, a federal district court may issue emergency injunctive relief only if it has 23 personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. See Murphy 24 Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that one “becomes a 25 party officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of summons or 26 other authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the party served must appear to 27 defend.). Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 28 officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491– 93 (2009); Mayfield v. United 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. The court may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before it. See, e.g., Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 234-35 (1916); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 1983); Lathrop v. Unidentified, Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel, 817 F. Supp. 953, 961 (M.D. Fl. 1993); Kandlbinder v. Reagan, 713 F. Supp. 337, 339 (W.D. Mo. 1989); Suster v. Marshall, 952 F. Supp. 693, 701 (N.D. Ohio 1996); see also Califano v. 8 Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979) (injunctive relief must be “narrowly tailored to give only the 9 relief to which plaintiffs are entitled”). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2) an injunction 10 binds only “the parties to the action,” their “officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” 11 and “other persons who are in active concert or participation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(A)-(C). 12 13 A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary measure of relief that a federal court may impose without notice to the adverse party if, in an affidavit or verified complaint, the moving party 14 “clearly show[s] that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant 15 before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). The substantive 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 purpose of a TRO is to preserve the status quo before a preliminary injunction hearing may be held; its provisional remedial nature is designed merely to prevent irreparable loss of rights prior to judgment. Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). But the legal standard that applies to a motion for a TRO is the same as a motion for a preliminary injunction. See Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted); Epona v. Cty. of Ventura, 876 F.3d 1214, 1227 (9th Cir. 2017) (same). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the 27 public interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon 28 a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted). “Under Winter, 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 plaintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” Section 3626(a)(2) also places significant limits upon a court’s power to grant preliminary injunctive relief to inmates. 9 “Section 3626(a) therefore operates simultaneously to restrict the equity jurisdiction of federal 10 courts and to protect the bargaining power of prison administrators – no longer may courts grant or 11 approve relief that binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.” 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Gilmore v. People of the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2000). In his motions for temporary restraining order, plaintiff seeks an order restraining the defendants from restricting his access to personal property as an inmate housed in the Special Housing Unit in USP-Atwater. Plaintiff has since been transferred to another institution where he admits that the restrictions are no longer at issue. Because plaintiff has been transferred from USP-Atwater and has not presented the court with any evidence demonstrating that he has a reasonable expectation of returning there, his requests for injunctive relief relating to the policy at USP-Atwater are now moot. Nunez v. Diaz, No. 1:19-cv00686-SAB, 2019 WL 4127205, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2019), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. 2019 WL 5390531 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2019) (citing Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam); see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 n.5 (9th Cir. 2007)) Accordingly: 1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a district judge to this case; and 2. The Court RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (Docs. 4, 8) be DENIED as moot. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 3 1 fourteen days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file 2 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 3 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections 4 5 within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 6 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 16, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 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.