Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00414/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00414-4/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KYLE JAMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES MARSHAL 

SERVICE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM

ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION FOR 

IMMEDIATE ACTION; AND

(2) GRANTING EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE TO FILE FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Kyle James (“Plaintiff”), currently housed at the San Diego Central Jail located in 

San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 and the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). See Compl. at 1, ECF Doc. No. 1. 

On August 8, 2017, the Court DISMISSED this action for failing to state a claim 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. ECF Doc. No. 18. Plaintiff was granted forty five (45) 

days leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Id. When that time passed and Plaintiff 

failed to comply with the Court’s Order, the entire action was dismissed. ECF Doc. No. 

19. 

Case 3:17-cv-00414-WQH-BLM Document 35 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM

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

Plaintiff later filed a Motion to Set Aside the Judgment which the Court 

GRANTED, in part, on November 20, 2017. ECF Doc. No. 27. Plaintiff was given an 

additional sixty (60) days leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Id.

On January 3, 2018, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Immediate Action” which the 

Court liberally construes as a motion seeking immediate injunctive relief and a “Motion 

for Extension of Time to File First Amended Complaint.” ECF Doc. Nos. 30, 32.

I. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Procedurally, a federal district court may issue emergency injunctive relief only if 

it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the 

lawsuit. See Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) 

(noting that one “becomes a party officially, and is required to take action in that 

capacity, only upon service of summons or other authority-asserting measure stating the 

time within which the party served must appear to defend.”). The court may not attempt 

to determine the rights of persons not before it. See, e.g., Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. 

Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 234-35 (1916); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 

1983). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), an injunction binds only 

“the parties to the action,” their “officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” 

and “other persons who are in active concert or participation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 

65(d)(2)(A)-(C).

In Plaintiff’s Motion, he claims that he is now a “pretrial detainee” and is housed at 

the San Diego Central Jail. Pl.’s Mot., ECF Doc. No. 30, at 1. He claims that he arrived 

there from Corcoran State Prison on December 21, 2017 but as of December 27, 2017 he 

has not been given his boxes of legal property. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff seeks an Order from 

this Court ordering the “Office of County Counsel to track legal property and ensure 

Plaintiff’s very expensive library of legal books and case discovery be returned.” Id. at 2.

All the named Defendants in the matter before this Court are alleged to be federal 

employees and none of the name Defendants are alleged to be employed by the County of 

San Diego. Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief that would require the Court to presume 

Case 3:17-cv-00414-WQH-BLM Document 35 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM

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

jurisdiction over parties who are not part of this action. The Court cannot grant Plaintiff 

injunctive relief because it has no personal jurisdiction over County of San Diego 

officials. See FED. R. CIV. P. 65(a)(1), (d)(2); Murphy Bros., Inc., 526 U.S. at 350; 

Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727-28. A district court has no authority to grant relief in the form of 

a temporary restraining order or permanent injunction where it has no jurisdiction over 

the parties. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 584 (1999) (“Personal 

jurisdiction, too, is an essential element of the jurisdiction of a district ... court, without 

which the court is powerless to proceed to an adjudication.”) (citation and internal 

quotation omitted).

In addition, Plaintiff has indicated that his counsel representing him in his state 

criminal proceedings is already seeking this relief in the State Court on his behalf. See

Pl.’s Mot. at 2-3. Thus, Plaintiff’s submission fails to set out “specific facts in an 

affidavit or a verified complaint ... [which] clearly show that immediate and irreparable 

injury, loss, or damage will result ... before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A); Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1128 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(“[I]njunctive relief is ‘to be used sparingly, and only in a clear and plain case,’” 

especially when the court is asked to enjoin the conduct of a state agency) (quoting Rizzo 

v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 378 (1976)). 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for “Immediate Action” must be DENIED.

II. Conclusion and Order

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for “Immediate Action,” ECF Doc. No. 30, is DENIED 

without prejudice.

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to file his First Amended 

Complaint (“FAC”), ECF Doc. no. 32, is GRANTED. The Court will grant Plaintiff one 

final extension to file his FAC in this matter. Plaintiff is granted sixty (60) days leave to 

file a FAC from the date this Order is filed. Plaintiff’s FAC must cure all the problems 

with his previous pleadings identified in the Court’s August 8, 2017 Order. 

Case 3:17-cv-00414-WQH-BLM Document 35 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM

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

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended pleading within sixty (60) days, this entire 

action will be dismissed for the reasons set forth in the Court’s August 8, 2017 Order and 

for failing to comply with a Court Order. 

Dated: January 11, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00414-WQH-BLM Document 35 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4