Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01391/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01391-15/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL G. VALENCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WINFRED KOKOR,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Document 56)

Plaintiff Daniel G. Valencia (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in 

this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on August 30, 2013.

On October 5, 2015, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and found 

that it stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Kokor and Sundaram. 

Plaintiff was ordered to either file an amended complaint, or notify the Court of his willingness to 

proceed only on the cognizable claims. 

On October 19, 2015, Plaintiff notified the Court that he would proceed only on the Eighth 

Amendment claim against Defendants Kokor and Sundaram. The Court has issued Findings and 

Recommendations to dismiss the remaining claims. Defendant Kokor has already appeared in this 

action. Defendant Sundaram has not been served.

Also on October 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief. Plaintiff requests that 

the Court order Defendant Sundaram to return his pain medication. 

Case 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-MJS Document 58 Filed 10/28/15 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

The motion is suitable for decision without an opposition pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

DISCUSSION

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

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation 

omitted). “A plaintiff 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.” Id. at 20 

(citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is 

entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

However, “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) (emphasis added); S.E.C. v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1138-39 (9th 

Cir. 2007). In this case, Defendant Sundaram has not yet made an appearance. Whatever merit 

there might otherwise be to Plaintiff’s requests for a preliminary injunction, at this juncture the Court 

lacks personal jurisdiction Defendant Sundaram and it cannot issue an order requiring him to take 

any action. Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at 110; Ross, 504 F.3d at 1138-39.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the above, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief 

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)(l). Within thirty (30) 

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 

///

///

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-MJS Document 58 Filed 10/28/15 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

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 

Cir.1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-MJS Document 58 Filed 10/28/15 Page 3 of 3