(PC) Somoza v. Director of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al, No. 1:2020cv01600 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Deny Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Clerk of Court to Assign a District Judge, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 08/12/2021. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen-Days. (Maldonado, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Somoza v. Director of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al Doc. 11 Case 1:20-cv-01600-AWI-SKO Document 11 Filed 08/12/21 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICARDO M. SOMOZA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Defendants. Case No. 1:20-cv-01600-SKO (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Doc. 9) 14-DAY DEADLINE Clerk of the Court to Assign a District Judge 17 Plaintiff Ricardo Somoza, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a document titled, 18 19 “Motion and Request for Extention [sic] of Time / or Temporary Leave.” (Doc. 9.) The Court 20 construes the filing as a motion for a preliminary injunction. For the reasons set forth below, the 21 Court recommends that the motion be denied. 22 I. DISCUSSION “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 23 24 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 25 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 26 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 27 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20. 28 /// Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-01600-AWI-SKO Document 11 Filed 08/12/21 Page 2 of 3 In addition, a “federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction 1 2 over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the 3 rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). 4 “[A]n injunction must be narrowly tailored ‘to affect only those persons over which it has power,’ 5 . . . and to remedy only the specific harms shown by the plaintiffs, rather than ‘to enjoin all 6 possible breaches of the law.’” Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) 7 (quoting Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727, 728 n.1). 8 In his motion, Plaintiff alleges the COVID-19-related protocols of Sierra Conservation 9 Center (“SCC”) violate the Administrative Procedures Act, the United States Constitution, and 10 the California Constitution. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an order commanding 11 the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to rescind these protocols. (See id. at 12 4.) 13 Plaintiff fails to show that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims or to suffer 14 irreparable harm in the absence of his requested relief. Plaintiff provides no facts to support his 15 allegation that SCC’s COVID-19-related procedures violate any federal or state laws, and he 16 provides no facts that show that he will suffer any harm from these procedures—let alone that the 17 harm would be irreparable. The claims in Plaintiff’s motion are also unrelated to the claims at issue in this case. In his 18 19 complaint, Plaintiff appears to raise claims of retaliation, inadequate medical care, and denial of 20 due process. (See Doc. 1.) As stated above, the claims in Plaintiff’s motion are based on SCC’s 21 COVID-19-related protocols. When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in 22 the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.” Pac. Radiation 23 Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015). “Because the Court only 24 has jurisdiction over the operative claims in the [c]omplaint,” which do not include the claims in 25 Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court lacks the authority to provide the 26 preliminary relief that Plaintiff seeks. Smith v. Rios, No. 1:10-cv-1554-AWI-MJS, 2010 WL 27 4603959, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (citations omitted). 28 /// 2 Case 1:20-cv-01600-AWI-SKO Document 11 Filed 08/12/21 Page 3 of 3 1 II. CONCLUSION, ORDER, AND RECOMMENDATION For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for a 2 3 preliminary injunction (Doc. 9) be DENIED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to 4 assign a district judge to this action. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the district judge assigned to 5 6 this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these 7 Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The 8 document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 9 Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 10 rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 11 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 12 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Sheila K. Oberto August 12, 2021 . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
