(PC) Kile v. Doerer

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JEFF KILE, No. 1:24-cv-01177-KES-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE DENIED J. DOERER, (ECF No. 23) 15 Defendant.

17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action.

18 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed July 28, 2025.

20 I.

21 LEGAL STANDARD 22 “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). “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 public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted).

2 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 6 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 8 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.”

12 Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. United 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.

17 II.

18 DISCUSSION 19 In his motion, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on the lockdown at the United States Petitionary in Atwater from August 9 to October 9, 2024. (ECF No. 23 at 1.) Plaintiff submits that “[t]he prevailing attitude is that a lockdown suspends prisoner access to administrative remedies, medical treatment, the ability to buy over the counter medicine, cleaning supplies, confiscation of property and rejection of mail without written notice….” (Id.) Plaintiff requests an order directing Warden J. Doerer to: (1) create and enforce a policy that a policy that ensures administrative remedies are available twice a week during a lockdown; (2) ensure that all outgoing mail is sent out not later than 72 hours after its receipt; (3) ensure the delivery of incoming mail to an inmate no later than 72 hours after its receipt; (4) enforced the policy of providing each inmate with a formal written rejection of all mail that is confiscated, rejected, or to be returned; (5) suspend the confiscation of legal material by all staff members; (6) ensure that each inmate is given the opportunity to go to sick call to see a doctor twice a week during a lockdown that extends more than 72 hours; (7) allow each inmate to access and purchase a full selection of over the counter medication twice a week during a lockdown; (8) provide cleaning and cell sanitation supplies to each inmate twice a week; and (9) eliminate the discriminatory medical policy which shows favoritism to inmates based on release date. (ECF No. 23 at 5-6.)

7 Here, Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief that he seeks. The Court does not have personal jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction over Defendants because none of the Defendants have received service of process as Plaintiff’s complaint is pending screening under § 1915A. See Zepeda v. U.S. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an injunction 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.”). Thus, there is no case or controversy before the court and it cannot be determined that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Further, Plaintiff’s motion makes no showing that he will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, or that an injunction is in the public interest. Rather, Plaintiff mainly expresses his disagreement with some of the Court’s prior orders. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied.

19 III.

20 RECOMMENDATION 21 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed on July 28, 2025, (ECF No. 23), be DENIED.

23 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court, limited to 15 pages in length, including exhibits. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights | onappeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. | Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). | so opexe. DAM Le | Dated: _ July 29, 2025 STANLEY A. BOONE 6 United States Magistrate Judge