Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00080/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00080-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Earnest S. Harris is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

In his complaint filed on January 18, 2018, Plaintiff requests the Court issue an emergency 

injunction. For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s request must be denied. 

I.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of equities 

so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure the positions 

until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 

395 (1981). “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.” Winter v. Natural 

EARNEST S. HARRIS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SEXON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:18-cv-00080-SAB (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO 

THIS ACTION

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION BE DENIED 

[ECF No. 1]

Case 1:18-cv-00080-DC-SCR Document 9 Filed 03/15/18 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted). An injunction may only 

be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted) 

(emphasis added). The analysis for a temporary restraining order is substantially identical to that for a 

preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush and Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 

839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001).

In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary injunction 

must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the Court finds requires 

preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm. 18 U.S.C. § 

3626(a)(2). The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in 

general. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 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. 

Plaintiff seeks an emergency injunction to stop all security checks. In this instance, Plaintiff 

has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. By way of separate order, 

the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint, found that it did not state any cognizable claim, and granted 

Plaintiff leave to amend. Therefore, this action does not proceed on any viable complaint at this time.

Further, no Defendant has been ordered served and no Defendant has yet made an appearance. 

“[A] court has no power to adjudicate a personal claim or obligation unless it has jurisdiction 

over the person of the defendant.” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110, 

89 S.Ct. 1562 (1969); S.E.C. v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2007). At this juncture, the 

Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and it cannot issue an order requiring them to 

take any action. Nor does the Court have jurisdiction over CDCR or prison officials generally merely 

based on the pendency of this action. Thus, at this early stage in the litigation and based on the limited 

record, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. 

///

///

///

Case 1:18-cv-00080-DC-SCR Document 9 Filed 03/15/18 Page 2 of 3
3

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

II.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for an 

emergency injunction be denied. 

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 twenty-one (21) 

days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 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 rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2018 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00080-DC-SCR Document 9 Filed 03/15/18 Page 3 of 3