Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00294/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00294-0/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

CHRISTOPHER DICKSON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

G. GOMEZ, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:17-cv-00294-DAD-BAM (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS 

SEEKING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(ECF Nos. 10, 11, 12)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Christopher Dickson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions requesting preliminary injunctive 

relief, filed on July 26, 2017, August 7, 2017, and August 30, 2017. (ECF Nos. 10, 11, 12). 

I. Motions for Preliminary Injunction

A. Legal Standard

“The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to 

demonstrate ‘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.’” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 

2009) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)); see also Ctr. 

for Food Safety v. Vilsack, 636 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2011) (“After Winter, ‘plaintiffs must 

establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in order to obtain a preliminary 

injunction.”); Am. Trucking Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 

2009). The Ninth Circuit has also held that “[a] preliminary injunction is appropriate when a 

Case 1:17-cv-00294-KES-BAM Document 13 Filed 10/10/17 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

plaintiff demonstrates . . . that serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance 

of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor.” Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 

1127, 1134–35 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 97 (9th Cir. 

2008) (en banc). The party seeking the injunction bears the burden of proving these elements. 

Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1201 (9th Cir. 2009). Finally, an injunction is “an 

extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled 

to such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. 

In addition, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) “establishes standards for the 

entry and termination of prospective relief in civil actions challenging conditions at prison 

facilities.” Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327, 333 (2000). Under the PLRA, a court “shall not grant 

or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief 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.” 18 U.S.C. § 

3626(a)(1)(A). The court must “give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or 

the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the preliminary relief.” 18 U.S.C. § 

3626(a)(2).

B. Analysis

Plaintiff in this case is currently housed at the California Correctional Institution (“CCI”) 

in Tehachapi, California. Each of the named Defendants in this action are correctional officers 

who are employed at the Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP), in Delano, California, where the 

alleged events at issue in this case took place. (ECF No. 1.) 

In his motion, Plaintiff alleges that he is experiencing harassment and retaliation at CCI, 

including that he is not receiving proper medical care, he is being taunted, and that his food and 

medication are sometimes placed out of his reach in an effort to harass him. 

“[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). Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened. No defendant has been ordered served 

Case 1:17-cv-00294-KES-BAM Document 13 Filed 10/10/17 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

and no defendant has yet made an appearance. At this juncture, the Court lacks personal 

jurisdiction over any prison official, and it cannot issue an order requiring them to take any 

action. 

More importantly, Plaintiff seeks preliminary injunctive relief against staff at CCI, but his

complaint concerns past events at KVSP, where he was formerly housed. His claims in this 

action are not related to the request for injunctive relief. The Court would not have jurisdiction 

over CDCR or CCI prison officials generally merely based on the pendency of this action. 

II. Conclusion and Recommendations

For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions for 

preliminary injunction relief (ECF Nos. 10, 11, 12) be DENIED. 

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

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

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the 

magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2017 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-00294-KES-BAM Document 13 Filed 10/10/17 Page 3 of 3