Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00113/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00113-1/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

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

LONNIE WILLIAMS,

CDCR #T-54378,

Civil No. 12cv0113 BTM (RBB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

(ECF No. 21]

vs.

DANIEL PARAMO; R. OLSON;

E. MARRERO,

Defendants.

Lonnie Williams, a state inmate currently incarcerated at CSP- Sacramento, filed this

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, prison

officials at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”), violated his constitutional

rights by labeling him with an “R” suffix and failing to protect him from prison gang members. 

(See Compl. at 3-5.) Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint on November 13,

2012. (ECF No. 14.)

On December 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Ex Parte Injunctive and Declaratory

Order” to which Defendants have filed a Reply. (ECF Nos. 21, 22.)

I. Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief

In his Motion, Plaintiff claims at her current place of incarceration in Sacramento she is

being “poisoned daily with arsenic, toxins, biological agents, bacteria and pesticides in her

1 12cv0113 BTM (RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-00113-BTM-RBB Document 23 Filed 01/11/13 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 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

food.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 1.) In addition, Plaintiff claims that she is having “multiple heart attacks.” 

(Id. at 2.) Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief “ordering the Plaintiff be transferred immediately

to CMF Prison for her protection and safety,” as well as an order “that CDCR officials do [not]

allege, document or inform anyone of the sex offense and “R” suffix placed upon the Plaintiff. 

(Id. at 4.)

As an initial matter, the Court finds that Plaintiff is requesting injunctive relief from

parties that are not part of this litigation. The allegations in Plaintiff’s Motion relate to events

that occurred at her current place of confinement which is in Sacramento. The action currently

before the Court relates to events that occurred while she was incarcerated at RJD. Moreover,

there are no Defendants in this action that are alleged to be prison officials at California State

Prison - Sacramento. Therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction to issue an order for

injunctive relief sought by Plaintiff in her Motion. See Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th

Cir. 1985) ("A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the

parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights

of persons not before the court." ).

II. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 21) pursuant to

FED.R.CIV.P. 65 is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 11, 2013

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

2 12cv0113 BTM (RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-00113-BTM-RBB Document 23 Filed 01/11/13 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2