Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00839/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00839-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT EMERSON FELIX,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLANDENIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00839-ADA-BAM (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

THAT PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY 

MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER AND 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE DENIED

(ECF No. 9)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Scott Emerson Felix (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained 

pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not 

prisoners within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 

1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining 

order and preliminary injunction, filed September 7, 2023. (ECF No. 9.)

I. Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

In his motion, Plaintiff requests a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction 

restraining Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in concert 

and participation with them from: (1) removing the furniture presently installed on the 

Case 1:23-cv-00839-KES-BAM Document 12 Filed 09/18/23 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Department of State Hospitals’ (“DSH”) Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”) unit wherein Plaintiff 

resides, and (2) installing the “Norix Furniture” that is presently scheduled to be installed on said 

unit. (Id.) Plaintiff argues that installation of the Norix furniture would needlessly subject him 

to: (1) spending the entire night fearing rolling off of the extremely narrow Norix bed; (2) having 

to remove about half of his personal property, most of which is legal material, as Norix furniture 

provides approximately half of the storage space of the present furniture; and (3) being subjected 

to the anger of the other patients on his CSH unit who are deprived of privacy as the Norix 

furniture is so much smaller than the present furniture (which acts as a privacy barrier), and is 

being installed in such a manner that patients have no privacy whatsoever while they are within 

their bed areas. Plaintiff contends that because defendants have never noted any safety and 

security risks on Plaintiff’s CSH unit caused by the present furniture, there can be no possible 

justification for the “unconstitutionally punitive conditions” created by the installation of the 

Norix furniture. (Id.)

II. Legal Standard

“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).

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. 

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.

///

Case 1:23-cv-00839-KES-BAM Document 12 Filed 09/18/23 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 

or state hospital 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.

III. Discussion

Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks in this motion. The 

Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental 

entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Although Plaintiff 

is a civil detainee and not a prisoner, because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, Plaintiff’s 

complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant 

who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

As Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff has 

shown a likelihood of success on the merits. In addition, no defendant has been ordered served, 

and no defendant has yet made an appearance. Thus, the Court at this time lacks personal 

jurisdiction over any staff or employees at Plaintiff’s current institution or any other DSH

institution, and it cannot issue an order requiring them to take, or forbid them from taking, any 

action.

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. Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due course.

IV. Recommendation

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s emergency motion for a 

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, (ECF No. 9), be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendation 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 fourteen 

(14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 

Case 1:23-cv-00839-KES-BAM Document 12 Filed 09/18/23 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

objections with the court. 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 the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 

findings” 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)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00839-KES-BAM Document 12 Filed 09/18/23 Page 4 of 4