Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01799/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01799-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK ARCHULETA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JONG, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01799-LJO-EPG (PC) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(ECF NO. 8)

Frederick Archuleta (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner (or former state prisoner) proceeding 

pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 16, 2020, 

Plaintiff filed what the Court construes as a motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 8). 

For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. 

I. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff asks for an injunction prohibiting “defendants, their successors in office, agents 

and employees and all other persons acting in concert and participation with them, from sending 

[him] back to prison being [he] attempted to get psychiatric help before snorting pills and using 

drugs.” (ECF No. 8, p. 2). Plaintiff alleges that being sent back to prison “puts [his] person at 

Case 1:19-cv-01799-DAD-EPG Document 11 Filed 01/17/20 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

great risk.” (Id. at 3).

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

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); see also Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979) (injunctive

relief must be “narrowly tailored to give only the relief to which plaintiffs are entitled”). Under 

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). “When a plaintiff seeks injunctive 

relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an 

injunction.” Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 

2015). 

Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the 

Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find that the “relief [sought] is 

narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right, 

and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right.”

On the merits, “[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.” Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2736-37 (2015) (quoting Winter v. Natural 

Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). “Under Winter, plaintiffs must establish that 

irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliance 

for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011).

Case 1:19-cv-01799-DAD-EPG Document 11 Filed 01/17/20 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

III. ANALYSIS

It is not clear if Plaintiff is asking the Court to prevent Defendants from transferring him 

from Coalinga State Hospital to a prison, or if he is asking the Court to prevent anyone from 

sending him to prison for “snorting pills and using drugs” because he was not provided with the 

appropriate psychiatric help. In either case, Plaintiff is not entitled to relief.

First, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or filed an application to proceed in forma 

pauperis in this case.

Second, to the extent Plaintiff is asking for an injunction to prevent Defendants from 

transferring him from Coalinga State Hospital to a prison, Plaintiff has submitted no evidence, 

nor has he even sufficiently alleged, that Defendants (who appear to be mental health 

professionals at Coalinga State Hospital) have the authority to prevent Plaintiff from being 

transferred to a prison. Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff is asking for this form of relief, his 

request appears to be moot. Plaintiff has stated, both in his complaint and in his motion for 

injunctive relief, that he is going to be released on January 14, 2020. (ECF No. 1, p. 4; ECF No. 

8, p. 15). If Plaintiff has already been released, then it appears that he no longer needs an 

injunction preventing Defendants from transferring him from Coalinga State Hospital to a prison.

Finally, to the extent Plaintiff is asking the Court to prevent anyone from sending him to 

prison for “snorting pills and using drugs,” Plaintiff’s motion will denied because under 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). Here, it does not appear that any 

named defendants would be responsible for sending Plaintiff to prison for violating the law. 

Moreover, Plaintiff cited no authority for the proposition that the Court can issue an injunction to 

prevent anyone from sending him to prison for “snorting pills and using drugs” because mental 

health professionals did not provide appropriate treatment.

Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

IV. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a 

Case 1:19-cv-01799-DAD-EPG Document 11 Filed 01/17/20 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

preliminary injunction is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2020 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01799-DAD-EPG Document 11 Filed 01/17/20 Page 4 of 4