Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00769/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00769-0/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

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

JAIME IGNACIO ESTRADA,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. PFEIFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-00769 GSA (PC)

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

ORDER RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION BE DENIED

(ECF No. 3)

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS DUE APRIL 22, 

2024

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

(ECF No. 9)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 

rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 

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

Before this Court are Plaintiff’s motion that a preliminary injunction issue and his motion 

for class certification. ECF Nos. 3, 9. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion for class 

certification will be denied. It will also be recommended that his motion that a preliminary 

injunction issue be denied.

Case 1:23-cv-00769-KES-GSA Document 14 Filed 04/09/24 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

I. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

A. Relevant Facts

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction reads much like Plaintiff’s complaint given 

that in it Plaintiff largely reiterates significant parts of the arguments he made in the complaint. 

Compare ECF No. 1 at 7-11, with ECF No. 3 at 1-4. The complaint alleges violations of right 

under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments against Defendants for allegedly taking too much 

money from his prison trust fund account. See generally ECF No. 1.

The instant motion states that similar improper withdrawals are also being made from the 

trust accounts of other inmates. ECF No. 3 at 4-5. Consequently, Plaintiff requests the Court to 

enjoin Defendants and other relevant actors from continuing to take money from his trust account 

and from those of other inmates when doing so is not consistent with state and federal law. See

id. ¶ 12.

B. Applicable Law and Analysis

“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.” Zepeda v. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). Those 

acting in concert with a party may be bound by an injunction that has been issued against the

party pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. Regal Knitwear Co., v. N.L.R.B., 324 

U.S. 9, 13-14 (1945); Golden State Bottling Co., Inc., v. N.L.R.B., 414 U.S. 168, 178 (1973).

However, Rule 65 does not confer personal jurisdiction where it otherwise is lacking. Citizens 

Concerned for Separation of Church and State v. City and County of Denver, 628 F.2d 1289, 

1299 (10th Cir. 1980).

Plaintiff’s motion must be denied because to date Plaintiff has yet to file a complaint that 

contains actionable claims against viable defendants (see the Court’s screening order). As a 

result, the motion for a preliminary injunction is premature for lack of personal jurisdiction. 

Furthermore, a litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other 

than himself. See Church of the New Testament v. United States, 783 F.2d 771, 774 (9th Cir. 

1986) (citing Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962)); see also McShane v. 

Case 1:23-cv-00769-KES-GSA Document 14 Filed 04/09/24 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

United States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 1966). Therefore, Plaintiff is not eligible to request 

preliminary injunction for other inmates as he may only request one for himself. For all these 

reasons, it will be recommended that the motion be denied.

II. MOTION FOR CLASS ACTION

A. Relevant Facts

In Plaintiff’s motion requesting class certification, he reiterates that the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) is consistently and improperly 

withdrawing too much money from his prison trust fund account. ECF No. 9 at 1. The CDCR, 

he contends, is doing the same thing to “dozens, if not hundreds of inmates” by. Id. at 2-3 ¶ 1. 

He further contends that these facts, along with a declaration from another inmate, meet class 

certification prerequisites under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. See id. at 3.

B. Applicable Law and Analysis

One of the prerequisites for a class action is that “the representative parties will fairly 

and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). A class action may 

not be certified where the representative parties are without counsel and especially where the 

plaintiff is incarcerated. See generally McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 

1966) (non-lawyer had no authority to appear as an attorney for other persons in a purported 

class action). “Although a non-attorney may appear in propria persona in his own behalf, that

privilege is personal to him. He has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than 

himself.” C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. U.S., 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations 

omitted). Thus, “it is plain error to permit [an] imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by

counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action.” Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d

1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (brackets added) (citation omitted). In addition, Plaintiff has 

requested that the Court appoint “qualified” counsel to represent both him and the members of 

the Class. But again, given that no cognizable claims or viable defendants have yet been found 

to exist in this case, this motion must likewise be denied.

In sum, because of the findings in the screening order that presently no existing

cognizable claims or viable Defendants exist, Plaintiff request for appointed Class counsel is 

Case 1:23-cv-00769-KES-GSA Document 14 Filed 04/09/24 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

denied. In addition, for these same reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for class certification is denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a District Judge to this action, and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for class certification (ECF No. 9) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction 

(ECF No. 3) be DENIED as prematurely filed.

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)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations – by April 22, 2024, – Plaintiff may 

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

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in a waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00769-KES-GSA Document 14 Filed 04/09/24 Page 4 of 4