1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RAFAEL SALAS, Case No. 1:25-cv-01767-BAM (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 12 v. ACTION

13 CAMPBELL, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 14 Defendant. PRESERVE EVIDENCE AND FOR LIMITED EARLY DISCOVERY (EMERGENCY 15 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF)

16 (ECF No. 3) 17 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 18 19 I. Background 20 Plaintiff Rafael Salas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 21 action pursuant to

. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is 22 pending due to Plaintiff’s failure to include a certified prison trust account statement, (ECF No. 23 2), and the complaint has not yet been screened. 24 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion to Preserve Evidence and for Limited 25 Early Discovery (Emergency Injunctive Relief),” filed December 8, 2025. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff 26 moves the Court for an order directing Defendants to preserve relevant evidence and to permit 27 limited early discovery of documents and electronically stored information directly related to the 28 events described in the complaint, before such evidence is lost or destroyed. (Id.) 1 II. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 2 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 3 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,

(2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 4 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 5 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 6 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”

(citations omitted). An injunction 7 may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.

(citation 8 omitted). 9 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 10 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 11 have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons,

(1983); 12 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc.,

464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no 14 power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18

(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find 16 the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation 17 of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the 18 Federal right.” 19 Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 20 officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst.,

, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. 21 United States,

(9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties 22 in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 23 U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield,

. 24 Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks in this motion. The 25 Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental 26 entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s 27 complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to 28 state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant 1 who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2);

(e)(2)(B)(ii). 2 As noted above, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is not yet complete, 3 and the complaint has not yet been screened. As such, this action does not yet proceed on any 4 cognizable claims, no defendant has been ordered served, and no defendant has yet made an 5 appearance. Thus, any motion for discovery is premature, and the Court at this time lacks 6 personal jurisdiction over any defendant or any other prison staff at any CDCR institution. 7 III. Order and Recommendation 8 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a 9 District Judge to this action. 10 Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for emergency 11 injunctive relief, (ECF No. 3), be denied. 12 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 13 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title

(b)(1). Within 14 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may 15 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 16 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed 17 fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page 18 number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page 19 limit may not be considered. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 20 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 21 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 22 v. Sullivan,

(9th Cir. 1991)). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24

25 Dated: December 9, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26

27 28