Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00454/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00454-3/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

UMAR SHAHID,

Plaintiff,

v.

I. ALDAZ, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0454 DAD P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff‟s motion for a preliminary 

injunctive relief.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is proceeding on a second amended complaint against defendants Rodriguez and 

Thompson. At screening, the court found that plaintiff‟s complaint appeared to state a cognizable 

claim for relief against defendant Rodriguez for allegedly interfering with plaintiff‟s right to 

marry. (Doc. No. 15) The court also found that plaintiff‟s complaint appeared to state a 

cognizable claim for relief against defendant Thompson for retaliation. (Id.) The court ordered 

service of plaintiff‟s complaint on defendants, and defendants have since filed an answer to the 

complaint. (Doc. Nos. 17 & 20) On December 15, 2014, the court issued a discovery and 

scheduling order in this matter. (Doc. No. 21)

Case 2:14-cv-00454-JAM-KJN Document 24 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 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

2

DISCUSSION

In the pending motion for preliminary injunctive relief, plaintiff contends that three 

investigative service unit officers confiscated his legal work pertaining to this lawsuit without 

explanation. Plaintiff seeks a court order requiring that he be transferred to a different institution. 

(Pl.‟s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 2-4.)

The court will deny plaintiff‟s motion without prejudice. As an initial matter, plaintiff‟s 

motion does not comply with Local Rule 231, which requires that a motion for preliminary 

injunctive relief be accompanied by: (1) a declaration signed under penalty of perjury on the 

question of irreparable injury; (2) a memorandum of points and authorities addressing all legal 

issues raised by the motion; and (3) evidence of notice to all persons who would be affected by 

the order sought. See Local Rule 231(d).

Moreover, plaintiff‟s allegations are against three non-party investigative service unit 

officers. In addition, plaintiff seeks a court order, presumably against his warden or the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, transferring him to a different 

institution. Plaintiff is advised that this court is unable to issue an order against any entity or 

individual who is not a party to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine 

Research, 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969); Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 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.”).

Finally, “[t]he 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 v. Selecky, 571 F.3d 960, 978 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). Here, plaintiff‟s 

allegations concerning the confiscation of his property are vague and conclusory and fail to state a 

claim for relief for loss of property, denial of access to the courts, or retaliation. In this regard, 

plaintiff‟s motion also falls short of making the showing required for the granting of preliminary 

Case 2:14-cv-00454-JAM-KJN Document 24 Filed 03/17/15 Page 2 of 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

3

injunctive relief. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, the 

court will deny plaintiff‟s motion for preliminary injunctive relief.1 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff‟s motion for preliminary 

injunctive relief (Doc. No. 23) is denied without prejudice.

Dated: March 17, 2015

DAD:9

shah0454.pid

 

1

If plaintiff is still without his legal property, he should first seek relief through the 

administrative grievance process at his institution of incarceration. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 

3084.1(a) (prisoners may appeal “any policy, decision, action, condition, or omission by the 

department or its staff that the inmate or parolee can demonstrate as having a material adverse 

effect upon his or her health, safety, or welfare.”).

Case 2:14-cv-00454-JAM-KJN Document 24 Filed 03/17/15 Page 3 of 3