(PC) Harris v. Neve

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EARNEST S. HARRIS, Case No. 1:19-cv-01338-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 v. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER D. NEVE, (Doc. 16) 15 Defendant. 14-DAY DEADLINE 16 Clerk of the Court to Assign a District Judge 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order. (Doc. 16.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s motion be denied.

19 I. DISCUSSION 20 “The standard for a [temporary restraining order] is the same as for a preliminary injunction.” Rovio Entm’t Ltd. v. Royal Plush Toys, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1092 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). A “federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). “[A]n injunction must be narrowly tailored ‘to affect only those persons over which it has power.’” Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing 1 Plaintiff requests that the Court order Psychiatric-Technician L. Flores to remain 50 feet away from him until an administrative grievance against her is adjudicated. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff states that he filed the grievance because Flores fails to announce her presence when she walks into his section of the prison and “look[s] into the cells of male incarcerated persons in an attempt to watch them … bird bathing.” (Id. at 2.) After he filed the grievance, Plaintiff alleges that Flores began retaliating against him by banging his cell door with a metal pipe when she walks by. (Id. at 3.)

8 Plaintiff’s allegations and requested relief in his motion are unrelated to the claims in this lawsuit. In his complaint, Plaintiff raises claims against Correctional Officer Neve for an alleged failure to provide him two meals. (Doc. 15 at 4-8.) Plaintiff does not raise any claims against Flores, and Flores is not a party in this case. The Court, therefore, does not have personal jurisdiction over Flores. Additionally, “[w]hen a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.” Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015). “Because the Court only has jurisdiction over the operative claims in the [c]omplaint,” which do not include the claims in Plaintiff’s motion, the Court lacks the authority to provide the injunctive relief that Plaintiff seeks. Smith v. Rios, No. 1:10-cv-1554-AWI-MJS, 2010 WL 4603959, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (citations omitted).

19 II. CONCLUSION 20 For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order be DENIED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a district judge to this action.

23 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 Dated: June 22, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE