Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01464/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01464-0/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

Plaintiff Danny Le (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on September 19, 

2014. Plaintiff’s complaint concerns allegations of deliberate indifference to his health and safety. 

On September 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Order to Show Cause & 

Temporary Restraining Order.” (ECF No. 6, p. 1.) The document appears to be a proposed order to 

show cause and temporary restraining order against Defendants Sandor, Goree and Cribbs for the 

Court’s signature. (ECF No. 6, pp. 1-2.) Insofar as Plaintiff’s document is construed as a motion for 

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, the motion is deficient and shall be denied

without prejudice to refiling. 

The analysis for a temporary restraining order is substantially identical to that for a preliminary 

injunction, Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush and Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th 

DANNY LE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

G. SANDOR, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01464-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER

(ECF No. 6)

Case 1:14-cv-01464-BAM Document 8 Filed 10/01/14 Page 1 of 2
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

Cir. 2001), and “[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).

Here, Plaintiff’s proposed order does not establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits or 

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, that the balance of equities tips in his favor or 

that an injunction is in the public interest. Rather, the proposed order merely states that Defendant 

Sandor should arrange for Plaintiff to get his fan from his property and that Defendants should appear 

and show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue requiring them to provide “all remedies 

to appropriately keep Plaintiff from overheating on heat meds while in Ad-Seg.” (ECF No. 6, p. 1.) 

Additionally, “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). In this 

case, the Court has not screened Plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether it states a cognizable 

claim, no defendant has been ordered served and no defendant has yet made an appearance. At this 

juncture, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants and it cannot issue an order 

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

The Court will screen Plaintiff’s complaint in due course. There are hundreds of prisoner civil rights 

cases presently pending before the Court, and delays are inevitable despite the Court's best efforts.

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary 

injunction, filed on September 24, 2014, is DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01464-BAM Document 8 Filed 10/01/14 Page 2 of 2