Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01020/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01020-2/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

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

SANDI NIEVES,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01290-CDB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(Docs. 4, 11)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Clerk of Court to assign a District Judge.

Plaintiff Sandi Nieves is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant

motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction (“injunction”). 

(Doc. 4.)1 By separate order, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and determined that it fails 

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. However, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to 

file an amended complaint, and the time for her to do so has not yet expired. Because this case 

lacks an operative complaint and Defendants have not been served, this Court does not presently 

have personal jurisdiction over Defendants or subject matter jurisdiction over this action. 

1 Plaintiff filed the same motion for TRO and injunction on September 13, 2022, with the 

addition of several exhibits (Doc. 11), which the Court has reviewed and considered in rendering 

this order.

Case 1:22-cv-01020-KES-CDB Document 19 Filed 08/02/23 Page 1 of 5
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

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a complaint in this action on August 15, 2022. (Doc. 1.) At the same time 

Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking a TRO requiring Defendants not to confiscate Plaintiff’s 

property until this matter is decided.

In particular, Plaintiff alleges she purchased a JPay tablet for $120 and approximately 

$5,000.00 in music, games, a keyboard, books, videos, and electronic stamps, as well as personal 

photos and emails. (Doc. 1 at 4.) In 2022, CDCR changed its policy to issue GTL tablets and 

ordered inmates to send out, destroy, or donate their JPay tablets without compensation. Id.

Additionally, the Secretary of CDCR changed the policy so that inmates could only possess one 

tablet. Inmates were told they would be able to transfer paid content to the new GTL tablets.

Plaintiff states that she would not have made such purchases had she known that she 

would not be allowed to keep the JPay tablet or that the tablet was part of a pilot program. (Id. at 

5.) Plaintiff alleges that the taking of her property without compensation violates her due process 

rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, fraud, and 

excessive force. (Id. at 3–4.)

Plaintiff alleges she is entitled to a TRO allowing her to retain possession of her tablet 

pending disposition of the case. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Jurisdiction and Rule 65

“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). 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 v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009). It may issue preliminary

injunctive relief only if personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over 

the lawsuit have been established. See Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 

U.S. 344, 350 (1999).

Under Rule 65, 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 

Case 1:22-cv-01020-KES-CDB Document 19 Filed 08/02/23 Page 2 of 5
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

participation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(A)–(C). The movant must also give “notice to the adverse 

party” before the Court can issue injunctive relief. Id. at 65(a). A putative defendant “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 must appear to defend.”

Murphy Bros., 526 U.S. at 350. The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction 

over prison officials in general. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491–93.

Concurrent with this order, the Court has issued a screening order finding Plaintiff’s

complaint fails to state a claim and affording Plaintiff thirty days to respond to the order. 

Therefore, at this early stage of the proceedings, this case lacks an operative complaint that can be 

served on Defendants. Without an operative complaint and service on Defendants, there is no 

case or controversy before the Court, City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983), and 

Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is premature.

B. Nexus

The injunctive relief sought must be related to the claims brought in the complaint. See 

Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015). In other 

words, “there must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief 

and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint.” Id. at 636 (adopting Devose v. Herrington,

42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994)). Absent a nexus between the injury claimed in the motion and 

the underlying complaint, the Court lacks the authority to grant Plaintiff injunctive relief. Id. A 

preliminary injunction only is appropriate when it grants relief of the same nature as that to be 

finally granted. Id. (citing De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)).

Because Plaintiff’s instant request for a TRO and injunction is closely related to the 

deprivation alleged in the complaint, the request bears the appropriate nexus.

C. Winter Factors

Even if the motion were properly before the Court, Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary 

injunction must be denied on the merits. A preliminary injunction may issue only if the movant

establishes: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable harm in the 

absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in his/her favor; (4) that an 

Case 1:22-cv-01020-KES-CDB Document 19 Filed 08/02/23 Page 3 of 5
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

injunction is in the public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. The movant bears the burden of 

satisfying all four prongs. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 

2011).

The Court has determined that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under section 1983 

primarily because Plaintiff lacks a protected property interest in possessing her JPay tablet while 

incarcerated at CCWI. Therefore, Plaintiff has not established she is likely to succeed on the 

merits.

As to the second element, an injunction is unavailable absent a showing of irreparable 

injury, a requirement that cannot be met where there is no showing of any real or immediate 

threat that the plaintiff will be wronged again—a likelihood of substantial and immediate 

irreparable injury.” Lyons, 461 U.S. at 111 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Ordinarily, monetary injury is not irreparable. See L.A. Mem'l Coliseum Comm'n v. Nat'l Football 

League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1202 (9th Cir. 1980); see also Inv'rs v. Bank of Am., NA, 585 F. App’x 

742, 742 (9th Cir. 2014) (describing the difference between irreparable harm and that which can 

be “adequately remedied through money damages.”).

Although Plaintiff wishes to keep using the JPay tablet, CDCR will provide Plaintiff with 

a substitute tablet. While Plaintiff asserts that there is no transfer of content from her tablet to the 

GTL tablet, she does not allege that she ever attempted to do so. Given her request to retain 

possession of the JPay tablet, it is unclear whether she has been deprived of the purchased 

content. Plaintiff seeks alternative relief of compensation for the tablet and its contents. 

Therefore, she does not demonstrate likelihood of irreparable injury. 

Given the inability of Plaintiff to demonstrate a likelihood of success or a likelihood of 

irreparable injury, the final two elements for a TRO––whether the balance of equities tips in her 

favor and whether injunctive relief is in the public’s interest––need not be considered. Plaintiff 

cannot meet all four Winter factors, and thus, she has failed to demonstrate on the merits that a 

TRO or preliminary injunction should issue. 

///

///

Case 1:22-cv-01020-KES-CDB Document 19 Filed 08/02/23 Page 4 of 5
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 

5

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Court DENY Plaintiff’s motion for 

a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Doc. 4) and DENY as moot Plaintiff’s 

subsequently-filed copy of the motion.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen 

(14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 

objections with the Court. The document should be titled, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Parties are 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)). 

The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a District Judge to this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2023 ___________________ _

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01020-KES-CDB Document 19 Filed 08/02/23 Page 5 of 5