Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01692/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01692-3/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAUL DANIEL LINAREZRODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

KORY L. HONEA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-1692 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. On April 19, 2023, plaintiff wrote a letter to the Clerk’s Office complaining of issues 

with receipt of his mail. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff requests a temporary restraining order against

defendant Foster, who has “access around inmate mail” at the Butte County Jail. (Id.) The 

undersigned construes plaintiff’s letter as a motion for temporary restraining order as to defendant 

Foster. 

As discussed below, the motion is denied without prejudice. 

I. Background

This action proceeds on plaintiff’s second amended complaint against defendants Foster, 

Perez, and Rayome. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff alleges that in April of 2022, defendants were 

deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs while he was suffering pain and had 

blood in his urine, later diagnosed as an inflamed kidney with reduced kidney function.

Case 2:22-cv-01692-DC-CSK Document 22 Filed 04/28/23 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

II. Governing Law

A temporary restraining order preserves the status quo before a preliminary injunction 

hearing may be held; its provisional remedial nature is designed only to prevent irreparable loss 

of rights prior to judgment. Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto 

Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). The standards for both forms of relief are essentially 

the same. See Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 

2001)(“Because our analysis is substantially identical for the injunction and the TRO [temporary 

restraining order], we do not address the TRO separately.”).

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 

v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citations omitted); Epona v. 

Cty. of Ventura, 876 F.3d 1214, 1227 (9th Cir. 2017). The party 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, 555 U.S. at 20 (citations omitted); see also American

Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 

Winter, 555 U.S. at 20); Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 (governing both temporary restraining orders and 

preliminary injunctions). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the 

plaintiff is entitled to relief. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 22 (citation omitted). Also, an injunction 

against individuals not parties to an action is strongly disfavored. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. 

Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969) (“It is elementary that one is not bound by a 

judgment . . . resulting from litigation in which he is not designated as a party. . . . ”). 

Further, a plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief must demonstrate a sufficient 

nexus between the injury claimed in the motion and the conduct asserted in the underlying 

complaint. Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Medical Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th 

Cir. 2015). “The relationship . . . is sufficiently strong where the preliminary injunction would 

grant relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally.” Id. (quotation marks 

omitted). “Absent that relationship or nexus, the district court lacks authority to grant the relief 

requested.” Id.; see Saddiq v. Ryan, 703 F. App’x 570, 572 (9th Cir. 2017) (unpublished)

Case 2:22-cv-01692-DC-CSK Document 22 Filed 04/28/23 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

(affirming denial of preliminary injunction because the prisoner did not establish a nexus between 

the claims of retaliation in his motion and the claims set forth in his complaint).

The propriety of a request for injunctive relief hinges on a significant threat of irreparable 

injury that must be imminent in nature. Caribbean Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 

674 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-32 

(9th Cir. 2011). Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable harm. See id.; Goldie's 

Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court, 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984). A presently existing actual 

threat must be shown, although the injury need not be certain to occur. Zenith Radio Corp., 395 

U.S. at 130-31; FDIC v. Garner, 125 F.3d 1272, 1279-80 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 

1020 (1998). 

Finally, 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).

III. Plaintiff’s Motion

Plaintiff alleges that his wife sent him documents from his kidney specialist regarding 

plaintiff’s prior check-ups, but the mail was returned to his wife due to a “stain” on the envelope. 

(ECF No. 20.) In addition, plaintiff states that at least four envelopes sent by his wife in March 

were not received by plaintiff. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff avers that defendant Foster has “access 

around inmate mail” at the Butte County Jail, and plaintiff is “led to believe [his] mail may be 

being held, and delayed in the process of receiving it and or might be tampered with” due to the 

instant litigation. (Id.) Plaintiff requests a temporary restraining order against defendant Foster.

V. Discussion

First, 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 

Case 2:22-cv-01692-DC-CSK Document 22 Filed 04/28/23 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

defend.”). The court may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before it. See, e.g., 

Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 1983). Here, no defendant, including defendant 

Foster, has yet been served with process or appeared in this action. 

Second, by his motion, plaintiff seeks relief that is unrelated to the claims proceeding in 

this case. As the Ninth Circuit stated,

[T]here must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the 

motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the 

underlying complaint. This requires a sufficient nexus between the 

claims raised in a motion for injunctive relief and the claims set forth 

in the underlying complaint itself. The relationship between the 

preliminary injunction and the underlying complaint is sufficiently 

strong where the preliminary injunction would grant “relief of the 

same character as that which may be granted finally.” De Beers 

Consol. Mines, 325 U.S. at 220. Absent that relationship or nexus, 

the district court lacks authority to grant the relief requested.

Pacific Radiation, 810 F.3d at 636.

Here, while plaintiff speculates that defendant Foster is somehow involved with issues 

concerning plaintiff’s mail, the receipt of plaintiff’s mail does not have a strong nexus with 

whether or not defendants were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs at the 

Butte County Jail in April of 2022. In addition, the relief sought differs. In this action, plaintiff 

seeks money damages; in his motion, plaintiff seeks a restraining order against defendant Foster, 

and plaintiff does not specifically identify the nature of the restraining order sought. Because 

plaintiff identified no nexus between his underlying allegations and the instant motion, the motion 

should be denied.

Importantly, in order to obtain injunctive relief, plaintiff is required to address each 

element under Winter. Plaintiff provides no facts demonstrating he is likely to succeed on the 

merits of this action, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, or that an injunction is in the 

public interest. Plaintiff broadly claims defendant Foster has “access around inmate mail,” and 

plaintiff is “led to believe” that his mail is being held, delayed or tampered with, but he provides 

no specific facts to support such belief or to connect such actions to defendant Foster. In 

addition, plaintiff includes no facts showing he is facing the likelihood of irreparable harm. 

Indeed, the envelope containing documents pertinent to this case was returned to his wife; 

Case 2:22-cv-01692-DC-CSK Document 22 Filed 04/28/23 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

therefore, such documents were not lost or stolen. Plaintiff did not identify the contents of the 

other four envelopes. Plaintiff is required to set forth facts demonstrating that irreparable harm is 

likely, not just possible. Alliance, 632 F.3d at 1131. Because plaintiff fails to address all of the 

elements under Winter, his motion should be denied.

For all the above reasons, plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 20) is denied

without prejudice.

Dated: April 28, 2023

/lina1692.tro

Case 2:22-cv-01692-DC-CSK Document 22 Filed 04/28/23 Page 5 of 5